query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
18 | 82dd47f2-2019-04-18T17:03:15Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Church and State should remain separate. "Your first point makes a point of saying that the law restricts representatives from using their religion. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ..."I'm sorry but I think you are completely misinterpreting what the amendment is actually saying. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which means Congress is prohibited from establishing any form of national religion under constitutional law. It also states that "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which means, like every other U.S. citizen, elected officials are allowed to PRACTICE the religion of their choice and this is protected but they CANNOT use their political power to pass laws regarding their religious beliefs. This would be in direct violation of the First Amendment because using one particular religion to pass laws would be classified as a government action that unduly favors one religion over another. The First Amendment also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.Please read this - http://www.law.cornell.edu... "Therefore, so long as representatives are voting and debating (just a vote and some argumentation that doesn't infringe on anyone) instead of creating a theocracy, they're perfectly justified in exercising their religion." Actually they cannot. When debating the passing of new laws congress must take into consideration the reasoning behind their stance behind the law. They must also express their stance to the courts who will then decide whether of not their stance is a valid one. If the only reasoning they have in support or opposition of law is their religion, they are automatically in violation of First Amendment law, the same law they took an oath to abide by. "The point of a representative government is to represent the people." While this is true, it is only true to a certain extent. Elected officials have an obligation to represent the people, however they can only represent the people so long as they abide by constitutional law, if they do not, their representation is overruled."If the representatives don't represent, then they were elected in vain creating an oppressive government who allows people to elect people who want to vote the same way as them, but they're not allowed to because people that don't like religion said so." Actually this is not correct. Establishing laws that ALL citizens are required to follow based on ONE particular set of religious beliefs is oppression. The majority cannot use power in numbers to overrule the rights and freedoms of people they disagree with if it does not infringe their own rights. It doesn't really matter who they voted for or why, the law is still very clear on the subject and specifically states that the United States Constitution forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. When it comes to the law, the citizens cannot abuse the power of elected officials to overrule the constitutional rights of other people. It can only be done under very specific circumstances and even then it still cannot interfere with the lives of other people. "No law has created an official religion for the nation. People may use it as part of their personal belief system when voting, but no religion has been established." If the government allows the establishment of religious based laws, that would no longer be considered a secular government. It doesn't matter if the religion was made national or not, if religion is used to pass a law, that is using theocratic ideologies. "I noticed almost all of them were debate (not establishment) concerning the LGBT community, although I would disagree that this is uniquely religious." I didn't say they were uniquely religious but many politicians and other elected officials have attempted to abuse political power by using religion as a basis for opposition. That does not work in the courts, which is why many of them have been denied. With the legalization of gay marriage in one state alone, many officials have attempted to pass bills that would prevent same sex couples from marriage, and they have all been struck down immediately because they were in direct violation of Constitutional law. "The debate concerning abortion and birth control is a scientific debate." The scientific debate behind legalizing abortion is already very clear. http://www.prochoice.org...If you would like to debate on the topic I will consider it. Although it is not within my exact area of expertise. 'Some prominent pro-life organizations include The National Right to Life Committee, Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Americans United for Life, the National Association of Evangelicals, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church).' http://abortion.procon.org... "Drug legalization is a scientific and philosophical debate." The scientific debate behind the legalization of certain drugs is also very clear. Drugs such as cannabis, Lysergic acid diethylamide etc, have little to no long lasting negative affects in humans. Whereas drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal yet responsible for millions of deaths annually and are linked poor functioning in the brain and long lasting damaging effects including shorter life span, and lung/liver damage. They are also a danger to others and puts innocent people in potential risk, including and especially small children. http://www.who.int... http://www.who.int... The majority of American now support legalizing certain drugs, the ones that do not are a minority but mostly religious. "Stem cell research and vaccinations are scientific debates." The scientific debate is also very clear on this as well. However these have also been religiously disputed. "In the end, you're committing hasty generalizations concerning the arguments on these." I never denied that non-religious people were against these topics, nor did I ever say that ALL religious people were either. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are many religious Fundamentalists and elected officials who use religion as a primary reason for their opposition. I am not generalizing, I am merely bringing attention to one particular set of issues regarding the First Amendment. Laws are mainly determined by their affect on society. For example, rape is illegal. Why? Because rape is a violent crime and completely dismisses the victim's right to consent. It is physically, emotionally and psychologically harmful to the victim and this is all determined through scientific analysis (cause and effect). Under no circumstance is rape legal in the U.S. and those guilty will be prosecuted under the law. Through the First Amendment, the rights of the victim come first, not the religion. If this were the other way around, the religion would come first, for it would be the law and the right of the victim would be dismissed. This happens in many Muslim countries under Sharia law. "You might not want to debate me in that, because you don't want to argue that god exists because if god exists then denying him the control of government is rebellion against him and therefore heretical." This proves my point. If you are arguing on the premise that god does not exist, why is this relevant? "You're arguing that god and an afterlife are not fact." A fact is indisputable. The existence of these are not incapable of dispute therefore those aren't facts. Regardless of the reason they were elected, officials must abide by Constitutional law regardless of their religious beliefs.I await your response. |
24 | 3c53b33f-2019-04-18T15:23:42Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | "Christians" - The 10 Commandments are still in effect and must be followed and kept! Churches across the world teach that YAHUAH's Ten Commandments were abolished - nailed to the cross with The Messiah, YAHUSHUAH, and that they are no longer required to be kept under the New Covenant. Is this what YAHUSHUAH and His Apostles taught? Did they continue to teach and observe the commandments? What does the Bible say? For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. - 1 John 5:3 In Matthew 5:17, The Messiah says, "Thinke not that I am come to destroy the lawe or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." So why is that people think that the laws are done away with? YAHUSHUAH clearly advised us NOT TO EVEN THINK THIS, yet Bible scholars and ministers GO AGAINST the teaching of The Messiah, and teach that we do not have to keep The Most High's laws. We are clearly warned of these false teachers by Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – "For suh are false Apostles, deceitfull workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. V14 And no marveile, for Sathn himself is transformed into an Angel of light. V15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also bee transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works." Satan's ministers pawn themselves off as The Messiah's ministers and Satan makes himself out to be YAHUSHUAH! Apostle John taught throughout his writings that the law is still to be observed by YAHUAH's people. In John 5:14 & 8:11 The Messiah told people to "sin no more". WHAT IS SIN? I Jn 3:4 states, "for sinne is the transgression of the law". SIN IS THE BREAKING OF The Most High's COMMANDMENTS! YAHUSHUAH said not to break them anymore! John clearly states that we don't even know The Messiah IF WE DON'T keep the commandments (I Jn 2:3-6). He continued to show that we are to keep the commandments in the book of Revelation. Rev 12:17 says, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Now read Rev 14:12, " Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev 22:14 states: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." What about the apostle Paul? False teachers take Paul's writings out of context to say that the Law is done away with. The apostle Peter gave warning of this in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul himself kept the law and declared, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good". He wrote to the Romans saying "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom 2:13). Concerning the GRACE of The Most High that we are under, he asked, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" V2-" God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2). And concerning Law and Faith he asks, " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31) These are simply a few of the countless Scriptures, which show the Truth of Law keeping for "Christians." Let's now view the New Covenant and make a list of the Ten Commandments as they appear throughout it. I'll list each of the commandments as they appear in Exodus 20 first, followed by their New Covenant counterparts. 1st Commandment OC: " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.V3 -Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Ex 20:2-3) 1st Commandment NC: "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt 4:10/ Luke 4:8). 2nd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or thatisin the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fouth generation of them that hate Me; And shewing mercy unto thousands who love Me, and keep my commandments." (Ex 20:4-6) 2nd Commandment NC: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols . . . "(Acts15:20) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:9,10) "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph 5:5) 3rd Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." (Ex 20:7) 3rd Commandment NC: "I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Mt 12:36) "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."(Mt 15:8,9) "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mt 23:9) " …that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1Tim 6:1) 4th Commandment OC: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh dayisthe Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in themis, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11) 4th Commandment NC: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Mt12:8/Lk 6:5) " . . . it is lawful to do well on thesabbathdays." (Mt12:12) "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day."(Mt 24:20) " . . . they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught." (Mk1:21) "And he said unto them, Thesabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27-28) 5th Commandment OC: "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Ex 20:12) 5th Commandment NC: " . . . Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying,Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (Mt15:3-4/Mk 7:10) "Honour thy father and thy mother . . . " (Mt 19:19/Mk 10:19/Lk18:20) 6th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex 20:13) 6th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Mt 5:21-22 - see 1Jn 2:9) " . . . Do not kill . . ." (Mk 10:19) 7th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14) 7th Commandment NC: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Mt 5:27-28) "I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Mt 5:32) "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery . . ." (Mt 19:18/Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) 8th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not steal." (Ex 20:15) 8th Commandment NC: "Thou shalt not steal . . " (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) "Do not steal . . . " (Mk 10:19/Lk 18:20) " . . . thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1Cor 6:10) "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." (Eph 4:28) "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Rev 9:21) 9th Commandment OC: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Ex 20:16) 9th Commandment NC: " . . . every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mt 12:36-37) "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man." (Mt 15:19-20) " . . . Thou shalt not bear false witness . . ." (Mt 19:18/Rom 13:9) " . . .Do not bear false witness . . . " (Mk10:19/Lk 18:20) 10th Commandment OT: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbour's." (Ex 20:17) 10th Commandment NT: "And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." (Lk 12:15) "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (Rom 7:7)" . . . Thou shalt not covet . . . " (Rom 13:9) |
20 | 4143772a-2019-04-18T13:07:07Z-00004-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Milk chocolate is better than dark chocolate "Dark chocolate is bitter than milk chocolate. It contains more cocoa than milk chocolate. Many children don't like food that is bitter." My opponent's point is that milk chocolate is better because it's not as bitter as dark chocolate, but it's subjective whether something tastes better if it's bitter or not. For example, I drink my coffee black, even though it is not as sweet as putting anything in. Therefore something being bitter may appeal to someone as better. Dark chocolate has more calories, fat than milk chocolate, and milk chocolate has more calcium than dark chocolate. Well yes that's true, but this depends on where you are at, and what I mean by this is that something having more calories may be good for an anorexic, and something having more calcium may be bad for someone who has too much calcium. Therefore it depends on the person's current situation. However dark chocolate does make someone age less. |
29 | 8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship I think you forgot the topic question. "Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that "illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us." Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation. |
49 | f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00003-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras His refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror. The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were:1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Now onto a new assertion:4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. . http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360° body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant. Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.360° clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water Shock resistant They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only. Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video. Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force. |
24 | da2ddeb5-2019-04-18T18:29:10Z-00000-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Income Tax Looks like I procrastinated too much to do this round.Too bad, this could've been a good debate.You get the win though.http://www.youtube.com... |
19 | bf9475f7-2019-04-18T17:15:49Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | gay marrige should be legalizzed I will start by refuting my opponents claims and statements. Your definition of the word marriage is wrong,some countries do have gay marriage. Like : Netherlands: On April 1, 2001 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage, with the same rights as heterosexuals. Includes the right to adopt. Belgium: Homosexual couples in Belgium have almost the same rights as heterosexuals. They won the right to marry in 2003 and in 2006 parliament voted into law a bill allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. Spain: In 2005 Spain became the third member of the European Union to pass a law allowing same-sex marriages. Gay couples can adopt children, whether they are married or not. Canada: Canada adopted a national law allowing gays to marry and adopt in July 2005, though most provinces had already allowed same-sex unions before that date. South Africa: The country legalised same-sex unions and adoptions by gay couples in November 2006, becoming the first African nation to do so. Norway: A 2009 law allowed homosexuals to marry and adopt children. Civil partnerships have existed in the country for 20 years. Sweden: Sweden's homosexuals have been allowed to wed in religious or civil ceremonies since May 2009. Portugal: Under a 2010 law Portugal legalised gay marriage, while excluding the right to adoption. Iceland: Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner in June 2010 as a new law legalising homosexual marriages came into force. Same-sex couples who have lived together for at least five years have had the right to adopt children since 2006. Argentina: Gays in Argentina became the first on the South American continent to be able to wed and adopt, after legislation passed on July 14, 2010. Denmark: Denmark, the first country in the world to allow gay couples to enter into civil unions in 1989, voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church in June 2012. Uruguay: Uruguay voted in April to allow same-sex marriages nationwide, making it only the second Latin American country to do so. New Zealand: New Zealand on April 17 became the first Asia-Pacific country to legalise same-sex marriage, after a decades-long campaign. Partial Rules Gay couples can marry in nine US states, as well as in the capital Washington, while parts of Mexico also allow same-sex marriage. Brazil this month gave a de facto green light to same-sex marriages after its National Council of Justice ruled that government offices could issue marriage licenses to gay couples without having to wait for Congress to pass a law allowing gay unions. Expected Soon Britain: Same-sex couples in Britain have had the right to live in civil partnerships since 2005 but cannot marry. British lawmakers voted in February in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage, despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party. The bill has since been scrutinised by a committee of lawmakers and will be debated again in the lower House of Commons on Monday, followed by a vote on Tuesday. If the vote passes, the bill will go before the upper chamber, the House of Lords, before becoming law. Civil Unions A number of other countries have adopted laws that recognise civil partnerships and give couples more or less the same rights as heterosexuals. Countries to have recognised civil unions without yet accepting gay marriage include Germany (2001), Finland (2002), the Czech Republic (2006), Switzerland (2007) and Colombia and Ireland (both 2011) If there are countries were gay marriages are allowed the oxford definition Is wrong,because it is ignoring the fact that in some countries gay marriages is a thing. Now going to your statements of the divorce rates.i do not argue with you that most of gay people break- up. Does divorce rates mean that the gay coupels that last live times aren"t true love?Should we bann the lottery there is a huge chance that we will not gain any money why do we bann everything that is probely not going to work?We do not do that because it would take the choise away from the people. There are many reasons why straight coupels divorce less. Children:parents do not want to lose the custody of their children,they do not want the children to live without both parents. So many coupels stay together even if there isn"t any love between each other they do not want to lose their children . Property split there are many states who have very draconic laws for divorce given almost everything to the women. Gay coupels usually have less things bonding them to each other like children. So if gay coupels survive the test of time their love has been proven. My opponent does a remark that people are going to want to marry animals,objects and multiple reasons.and I shall explain why this cannot happen if we legalize gay marriage.I shall explain why this will not be possible with the legalization of gay marriage. Animals:animals cant sign legall documents.so they can not sign a marriage certificate. Objects:objects have no rights to sign any legall document ore have the ability to do it(yet). Polyamory:would be an option and I do not se why it would be wrong.if you don"t agree with me whe can have a debate on that. My opponent states that people will change laws to democracy to make such marriages legal.Democracy requires the majoritie of votes if people in the future see that as right and they are the majority then who is the minority to oppose what the majority wants. In 100 years we will be most likely be dead ,so why should we have a say in the politics of the future if we are dead. My opponent says that no religion accepts gay marriage what is false(atheism is not a religion ). Religions who accept gay marriage: -Christianity : Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from certain Christian denominations that are theologically considered liberal. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., theChristian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[2][3] Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.[4] -Liberal Buddhists -Liberal Hindus -Wicca Native American religion Forbidding gay marriage is oppression of these religions,basing marriages laws one Christianity is wrong. The united states have been founded one the pricipels of church and saate separation. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... My new argument: Not all humans are man and woman there are uni-sex peopel .should those peopel be allowed to marry.of course they should.saying that marriage should be betwen a man and a women is ignoring that not all humans are even man or women. Note:Saying that kids need the love of both parents to be normal is saying that kids who live in a divorced coupel are not normal,kids who one of their parent is dead are not normal,saying that children who lived there entire childhood are not normal and does that sound right to any one.Childreen do not get confused by seeing gay coupels my mother had many gay friends I have many gay friends that does not mean that I got confused.I am heterosexual after having had many encounters with gay people as I was before nowing them.What confuses children is live their hole live without knowing of the existenz of gay marriage and then finding out that gay coupels exist.What they think :I did not now that gay people exist maybe I am one of them? That is all for now. |
18 | 986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00004-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Marijuana should remain illegal I accept. I am for the legalization of recreational and medical uses of Marijuana. Good luck and I hope we have a good debate. Since no definitions were set up I'll do some. Marijuana- Cannabis Illegal- In this context, to have the sale, possession, distribution and growth illegal to be punished by the law |
16 | 2654c4cb-2019-04-18T16:09:27Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All forms of drugs should be legalized Thanks.My opponent claims that we shouldn't support the existence and use of drugs. However, I'm not necessarily saying that. Just because the government regulates something, that doesn't mean that they encourage it's use. All it means is that they have their fingers in it.So I'm not saying that we should encourage drug use. I'm saying we should discourage it. However, I'm arguing that making drugs illegal is not the correct way to go about this.My opponent also admits that drugs destroy lives. This is my point exactly! Since drugs are illegal and unmoderated, people may very possibly overdose. When they realize this, it's highly doubtful that they're going to call the police. Why? Because they'd get in big trouble.This results in many many more deaths.The drug laws don't help anyone. They have cost us huge amounts of money, and haven't stopped drugs.Drugs will still be out there no matter what we do. So why not regulate them and wean society off of them? |
28 | f005b505-2019-04-18T19:18:17Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized in the United States. I will be using a dual overlaying teleological/constitutional argument to contend that prostitution should be legalized in the United States. In this project I will borrow the harm principle, as articulated by John Stewart Mill, to argue that the only reasonable circumstance in which a government can limit a citizen's liberty is to prevent that person from causing harm to others. This view when taken to its logical conclusion would entail the legalization of prostitution. Contention 1: The Harm Principle For the sake of convenience I will grant to my opponent that prostitution may harm its participants albeit inadvertently. What conclusions can we draw from this? Clearly we can't conclude that prostitution should be outlawed solely on the basis of its potentially being harmful to its consenting patrons. If we were to take this route then we would also have to outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, skydiving, and driving. Alcohol has no known medical uses and its dangerous levels of consumption can be achieved rather easily. Its contribution to murders, lethal car accidents, violent crimes and property damage is beyond dispute because it generally releases the inhibitions of those that take it. [1] Any coherent argument against prostitution that would leave alcohol legalized would be a masterpiece of political engineering. Indeed, the harm principle clears prostitution because it is incapable of harming anyone aside from those that willingly choose to engage in it. Contention 2: The Offense Principle Shall our government limit liberties on the basis that certain actions will offend others? Not if we wish to remain consistent with the bill of rights. At no point in the bill of rights is anyone guaranteed the right not to be offended. Secondly, people will inevitably take offense to nearly anything, which renders the offense principle entirely relative. The offense principle provides no objective basis for limiting liberty because different things will always offend different people. And if it were taken to its logical conclusion the offense principle could lead to us outlawing minority religions like Islam, pornography, mini skirts, chewing gum, backwards baseball hats and nearly anything imaginable. Contention 3: The Utility Factor Like it or not people love sex. Some like it a bit too much, but hey, who am I to judge. Sex provides happiness and gratification to those that freely enjoy it. To deny people their right to enjoy sex for money is to deny them their right to pursue happiness as they see fit. The only rational thing that can be said about our collective aversion to prostitution is that we, as a society, have systematically demonized everything that could possibly exceed the pleasure of prayer or pro creative sex. Contention 4: Constitutionality As free people we have the right to pursue happiness as we see fit insofar as this behavior doesn't injure innocent bystanders. We do not, for instance, have the freedom to drive down the freeway blindfolded even if this behavior were to produce copious amounts of happiness in the driver. The problem with prostitution is not in the act itself it is within each of us. Prostitution between consenting adults infringes upon no one else's rights and this much is beyond dispute. The declaration of independence guarantees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [2] To deny or infringe these rights in any way without sound reason is unconstitutional and it is unfair. We have a constitution to guarantee us freedom from the tyranny of the majority. It follows from this that we are not at liberty to deny people rights merely because we find their behavior to be sordid. In this context it is important to reflect upon the fact that our constitution says nothing about prostitution and certain passages of the Constitution stipulate that a sound argument can be made for prostitution with the following articles: [3] – [4] �Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." �Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution." �Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." �Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." �Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Contention 5: Potential Rebuttals Addressed Arguments about child prostitution will be disregarded because my argument focuses on consenting adults. ========= Sexually transmitted diseases will spread if we legalize prostitution. ========= Even if this were true- (which I don't think it is)- it doesn't logically follow that prostitution should be illegal. If our government were to divert its resources to go after prostitutes merely because they may have STDS then in order to avoid being hypocritical we would also have to prosecute sexually promiscuous people. Surely there are ordinary citizens that engage in more sex than prostitutes. The notion that cops would regulate ordinary peoples sexual behavior for the "greater good" is as ridiculous as it is obscene. And yet this would be the exact world we would be beckoned to if we were to casually regulate people's sex lives on the basis that they could infect other people. ======== Conclusion ======== Victimless crimes are as repugnant as they are pervasive in our society and if we seek to take steps to ending the mindset that creates them then we should do the right thing and legalize prostitution. Defining terms Prostitution is defined as the act of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for money or goods. (http://en.wikipedia.org.........)----- For the purpose of clarity, the definition of prostitution in this debate will only include the direct physical act of engaging in sexual activity between two persons, and thus pornography would not qualify as prostitution. Harm principle (as articulated by J.S. Mill)- a government can only limit the liberty and rights of its citizens in order to prevent citizens from harming each other. (http://en.wikipedia.org.........) Sources [1] http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu......... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org......... [3] http://www.earlyamerica.com......... [4] http://www.buildfreedom.com......... |
22 | a1304245-2019-04-18T11:32:09Z-00002-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Philosopher Kings are the solution. you just got FLIIPIn INTEMITEAD by me. Flee my presence you son of a dang magnito Chrstino, cuz ur the one that clearly got rekt. |
5 | 36edccb7-2019-04-18T13:24:24Z-00000-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security I have enjoyed having this debate, and it has proved to be very stimulating. Defense: " is true that it requires taxes and that workers are going to pay taxes. This is a fact. When I said that it discriminates, it is not because taxes themselves exist, but because they pay 1.45% of their income if their income is below the tax base of $118,500. Hence, poor and middle class individuals are hurt but those with more money are not You never explain how they are hurt. There does need to be reform in the system. Bernie Sanders has offered to tax the wealthy in order to save social security. . http://thehill.com... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This is precicely how Social Security works. Old investors are paid by having new investors; similarly, one generation is paid for by the next generation. Like a Ponzi Scheme, it will eventually run out of new payers because of population change. As I said in round 2, in 2011, 54 million people received benefits and 157 million people were paying. " Again, my attack will still stay on this argument. The young investors start gaining money in social security when they become older. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After this, my opponent states some statistics about Social Security and then makes the point that if Social Security is cut, "47% of unmarried persons will have a cut of 90% of their income. " This is a fair point, but he does not take into account that this will happen naturally and will affect everyone on Social Security by 2036, My opponent concedes to this claim. There needs to be some simple reform in the social security system, but it does mean that the whole system should be deleted. A lot of old people depend on social security still. |
4 | 5b47ffd1-2019-04-18T18:13:44Z-00006-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Serial Bullies should be expelled and be sent to reform school ===Acceptance=== I accept this challenge. Note that the argument was clarified in comments 1 and 2 to this more formal version: 1. Many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school. 2. In most cases, bullies are given no punishment whatsoever. 3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be 1) denied a free education, 2) sent to a reform school, and 3) be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Note that 1), 2), and 3) will all apply to all cases, not some combination of the three. ===Disclaimer=== Before I begin this debate, I would like to make a disclaimer that I do agree with the general premise of the debate. Bullying is a regrettable aspect of the public school system and society in general and should have consequences and penalties. However, I am not debating that bullying is bad - this would be a ludicrous argument; rather, I am debating the extreme level of retaliation that my opponent is proposing against bullying and the problems with implementing this in the public school system. ===Rebuttal=== Since my opponent is the instigator arguing an affirmative change to an existing policy, rather than a hypothetical debate, he has the burden of proof. Also, since my opponent's long introduction constitutes an argument, and the first round was not specified to be acceptance only, I will proceed directly to rebuttal. This will use the numbering system established in the formalized version of the argument. Rebuttal to Statement 1. My opponent's statement that many students are scarred for life due solely to the fact that they were bullied in high school is unsubstantiated and uncited. I shall proceed to give two possible counterexamples. 1: An adult who happened to be bullied in high school could be scarred for life as a result of bullying in high school, among other factors, rather than solely due to bullying in high school. Furthermore, such an adult could have never learned to develop the proper emotional defensive skills, such as standing up to opposition and bullying, and thus be scarred due to further bullying in the workplace. Note that I am not arguing possible scenario as a main point, but simply presenting a possible counterexample. 2: Because the source is uncited, I will dispute it by default. However, it is a reasonable assumption, so if presented with a source or citation for this, I will agree with this point. Rebuttal to Statement 2. Again, my opponent's statement is uncited and unverifiable. A sample size for the amount of bullying happening in school is impossible to get from a relatively unbiased source, such as teachers or administration, and prone to exaggeration and hyperbole from a biased source, such as students. Obviously, one is less likely to be bullied in front of, say, the school principal or other administrator, than when no other adults are around, making it impossible to establish an accurate sample size. Conversely, a sample taken from the student body is prone to exaggeration for multiple reasons, such as varying definitions of "bullying", reticence or shame to admit to the interviewer, etc. Rebuttal to Statement 3. While my rebuttal to my opponent's statements 1 and 2 were mostly technicalities, the main issue I take issue with (and I presume the main issue of the debate) is statement 3. I will break the third part of my opponent's resolution down into the three components established in the formalization of the argument, namely: 3.1. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be denied a free education. 3.2. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be sent to a reform school. 3.3. All students who go to school for the sole purpose of degrading their peers and causing psychological injuries onto their victims should be prosecuted by the fullest extent possible in accordance to whatever country/state/province/etc. they inhabit. Rebuttal to Statement 3.1. According to Section 26 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly res. 217A (III), 10 December 1948), "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free..." [1] While bullying should by no means be condoned in school, denying people who bully the right to a free education is not the answer. Education in high school and particularly college is not only a time of academic maturation, but also social maturation. Also, bullies tend to come from homes with immature parents prone to domestic violence. Aside from having to rewrite the entire Universal Declaration of Human rights, an argument could be made that by denying bullies free education, a perpetuating cycle would ensue, as bullies would be forced out of the school system, missing a major part of maturation, growing up to be immature adults more likely to have children ending up to be bullies, just to name one possible scenario. By denying all bullies the right to education without regard to the severity of their social crimes (note that no qualifier was made; "all students who go to school for the solve purpose of degrading their peers" indicates an absolutist argument), one may perpetuate the social cycle that promotes bullying. Rebuttal to Statement 3.2. By definition, reform schools are correctional institution for the detention and discipline and training of young or first offenders. Like in prison, reform schools commonly have rape problems, as evidenced by a nine-year investigation in Ireland's reform school systems. [4] By simply casting away bullies without regard to the severity of their victimizing tendencies, one may be condemning a child to an institution far out of proportion to their crimes. Though reform schools are necessary in some case, a delimeter or qualifying process would need to be institutionalized in order to determine who to send to a reform school. Rebuttal to Statement 3.3. Many states and countries have drastically different bullying laws, as evidenced by the plethora of new anti-bullying laws constantly being instated, some quite harsh. By prosecuting ALL bullies to the fullest extent possible, one is ensuring a draconian system that does not take severity into account in penalties, similar to the scenario in the rebuttal to my opponent's statement 3.2. Furthermore, in the United States, if a student physically bullies another person, he/she can be charged with assault and battery [5] and tried as an adult if at or over 18 years of age. Due to the nature of bullying, (see Rebuttal to Statement 2) the vast majority of prosecuted statements could conceivably turn into a he-said-she-said situation, as bullying is much less likely to happen in front of authorities or a group of unbiased individuals. Since the fullest extent of, say, assault and battery can mean multiple years in prison if convicted, prosecuting all offenders to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their crimes, is an unnecessarily severe punishment more subject to abuse than proper implementation. ===References=== [1] http://www.hrea.org...; [2] http://www.education.com...; [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; [5] http://boston.cbslocal.com...; |
37 | f074f877-2019-04-18T12:16:57Z-00007-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Nuclear Power Thanks to Smooosh for this debate. I will now present my case. I. IntroPro is implicitly using a cost-benefit analysis framework to analyze the arguments in this debate by appealing to the negative consequence he believes will arise from negating the resolution. That's fine--I can accept a cost-benefit analysis framework for this debate. This allows us to skip a lengthy framework debate and move straight into the issues. Given that many of the disadvantages to negating (e. g. terrorism) that Pro brings up would seem to be inherent to nuclear power at all times, Pro should argue for immediate or near immediate prohibition of nuclear power. Any phase-out mere prolongs the dangers Pro talks about, if you buy that his dangers are real. This is particularly relevant in terms of global warming (GW). If the point of reducing pollution is to end global warming, then action ought to be taken immediately (as I will show later on). And if uranium mining is as polluting as Pro claims, Pro ought to want it to end now, not later. Pro himself writes, "nuclear energy is the WORST polluter of all energy sources. Most scientists believe, if we stop using fossil fuels today the effects on the environment would begin to reverse in as little as a decade. " Clearly, Pro should want us to stop using nuclear "today" if this is what he's arguing. Finally, it is important to note that it is not my task to show that nuclear energy will always be desirable in all circumstances. Merely, I must show that it ought not be prohibited. In this sense, Pro has a harder task ahead of him, because if nuclear power has neutral or beneficial outcomes, there is no good reason to prohibit it. Only if nuclear power is clearly harmful, would Pro be able to affirm under a cost-benefit paradigm. II. Global WarmingA. GW Needs to be Tackled SoonWe've all seen the reports about rising temperatures and sea levels. We've heard political pundits on the right deny that the problem exists and castigate the left for its alarmism. Yet, the data seems to confirm that the left's alarmism may be justified. If the earth's temperature rises between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, 20-30% of the world's animals and plants could vanish. [1] This would constitute a mass extinction. Increasing temperatures could cause sea levels to rise such that island nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands, or coastal cities like Venice and Bangkok, could become entirely submerged; it could also cause crop yields to decrease, resulting in global food shortages. [2, 3] In order to stabilize temperatures before 2050, CO2 emissions will have to fall 60-80% by that time. [4]B. Nuclear Power cuts down on Greenhouse Gases (GHG)"Cumulatively, nearly 60 GtCO2 have been avoided globally since 1971, thanks to nuclear power. Thus, if the present nuclear energy capacity were to be phased out and replaced by remaining technologies in the world's current energy mix. .. global annual CO2 emissions from electricity supply would rise by 12%. " [5] These OECD findings also show that, when factoring in direct and indirect emissions, nuclear power is cleaner than coal, natural gas, biomass, solar, and hydropower energy. The example of France is also a great case study in how nuclear power can significantly and positively impact the environmental picture. In fact, "the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and '80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. " [6]C. Nuclear Plants vs. the AlternativesI've already established that nuclear power is cleaner, in terms of GHG emissions, than the alternatives, but it also has some other advantages related to its energy capacity. In the US, the average solar plant or wind farm operates at 15 or 25% capacity, respectively. In contrast, a "nuclear plant can operate also at 90 percent of full capacity and can replace a coal-fired plant on a one-to-one basis. " It would take six solar plants or four wind plants to replace a single coal-fired plant. [7]Moreover, many alternative forms of energy suffer from inherent intermittency. The wind is not always blowing, the sun is not always shining, and the rivers are not always flowing (or at peak fullness). Nuclear power, however, can run at the same pace year round, and is not contingent on the weather to operate. The fact that nuclear power is clean, can produce more energy than alternatives, and is not subject to environmental conditions in the same way that the alternatives are, makes is a key tool in combating GW. It would make sense to scale up nuclear to quickly address the threat posed by GW, because of nuclear's advantages. Any phase out would likely prolong our reliance on coal, because of the inefficiencies of the non-nuclear, clean alternatives. III. Nuclear Power's Practical AdvantagesA. Nuclear Power is Cheap"On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. " Nuclear power has a lower levelized cost than advanced coal with carbon capture, conventional combustion turbine, biomass, offshore wind, photovoltaic solar, and thermal solar. [14]B. Nuclear Power is SafeNuclear power kills fewer people per terawatt hour than coal, oil, natural gas, biofuel, peat, rooftop solar, wind, and hydro, averaging just 0.04 deaths per terawatt hour. [15] Since the first nuclear power plant was constructed 63 years ago, there have only been three major nuclear meltdowns: Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of those, only one--Chernobyl--produced any fatalities [16, 17, 18]. That's 1 accident every 21 years, but, in reality, the accidents are becoming rarer. TMI and Chernobyl were less than 10 years apart, but Fukushima was 25 years after Chernobyl [16, 17]. And, Chernobyl happened only because of a design flaw that, given its notoriety, will never again be repeated. IV. Miscellaneous Benefits of Nuclear PowerA. Nuclear Power and MedicineRadioisotopes are key for conducting CT Scans and nearly half of all US cancer patients receive some kind of radiation-based treatment. More than 80% of drugs are tested using radioisotopes, and radioisotopes are used in medical research (e. g. finding a cure for AIDs). [8] Moreover, alternatives like cyclotrons (a kind of particle accelerator which can produce some kinds of radioisotopes) cannot replace nuclear power in serving the medical community. "More than 80 per cent of the radioisotopes used in medical procedures worldwide come from research reactors. Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99), which decays to form technetium-99m. .. the most commonly used radioisotope--is currently only produced in nuclear research reactors. A recent report (2010) from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency indicates that non-reactor technologies for Mo-99 production are still decades away from fruition, and expresses strong doubts as to whether they could ever substitute for reactor technologies. " [9]B. Nuclear Power and VehiclesNuclear-powered submarines are a key elements of some countries' defense forces, and prohibiting that technology could disadvantage any one of them in the face of the others, should those others not similarly prohibit that technology. Nuclear-powered icebrakers are important for keeping Arctic trade routes open, for rescues, and for research. They are more powerful than conventional icebrakers, giving them a wider range of use. [10]C. Nuclear Power and Space Exploration"Unmanned spacecraft rely on radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for the power they need for space exploration. RTGs use heat from plutonium to generate electricity. " [11] RTGs of this kind could also be useful for rovers. Rovers, like the European Space Agency's Rosetta, often carry solar panels and batteries that they rely on for power. Rosetta landed in an area shaded by cliffs, meaning that it could only send out data for 64 hours before it shutdown. [12] A non-solar power source, like RTGs, could prevent wasted missions like that. They could also allow rovers even in areas not subject to constant shade to transmit continuously, not just when then sun was up. This technology is currently in the works: "The Idaho National Laboratory's Centre for Space Nuclear Research in collaboration with NASA is developing an RTG-powered hopper vehicle for Mars exploration. " [12] Looking towards future missions into space beyond our solar system, nuclear power will be an essential tool. "Nuclear energy proves to be the most effective when attempting to make long distance missions in space. Nuclear energy not only provides way more power than batteries, fuel cells, and photovoltaic, but it also is an enduring source of energy as it has a much longer lifespan. Unlike solar energy, nuclear power is not dependent on the intensity of the Sun's rays, which makes it the optimal choice for traveling into deep space. " [13]V. Sources1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...4 - . http://tinyurl.com...5 - . https://tinyurl.com...6 - . https://tinyurl.com...7 - . https://tinyurl.com...8 - . https://tinyurl.com...9 - . https://tinyurl.com...10 - . https://tinyurl.com...11 - . https://tinyurl.com...12 - . https://tinyurl.com...13 - . https://tinyurl.com...14 - . https://tinyurl.com...15 - . https://tinyurl.com...16 - . https://tinyurl.com...17 - . https://tinyurl.com...18 - . https://tinyurl.com...Thus, I negate. Thanks to the readers for following along and to Smooosh for the debate. I look forward to a great debate. |
20 | 5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00003-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral I apologize for the mishap in citation, upon inspection you'll notice 3 black periods after each source "..." this cut off the actual link, leading to the general website. This is undoubtedly a mistake caused by having to copy and paste my arguments after your FF. Actual citation is as follows; please feel free to verify: [1] http://authoritynutrition.com... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.peta.org... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://modernfarmer.com... For the purpose of my rebuttal I will refer to my previous 6 sources as numerically cited and future sources will be cited as 7 & up. In citing your sources they will be referenced as [Con #] Given that my arguments have been legitimated, your comment "Since there are no proper sources we can ignore the statistics, for they were wrong anyways." can be disregarded. I understand that this is a bit unfair to you given that you decided to arrogantly brush off my arguments and supply your own. You will now have the chance to refute my Round 2 argument. I recommend you actually read it this time, because there is clear evidence in your rebuttal you did not. Problematic Citation and Source Material: I apologize for the mishap in my Round 2 source material; however you'll find that everything is properly cited and credible. However in your entire argument you fail to properly cite anything you said. I have no idea which comment corresponds to which source; if this were an academic setting you would be charged with plagiarism. Your source material is also very questionable and contradictory, and some are irrelevant to the debate entirely. Because you did not openly disclose which arguments come from which sources I have to spend the majority of my rebuttal debunking your sources. I ask that you re-read my Round 1 post. Source [Con 1] enforces my position quote "The high level of meat and saturated fat consumption in the USA ... exceeds nutritional needs and contributes to high rates of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers." [Con 1] is describing SAD, in my position statement I clearly acknowledge that SAD is not relevant to the debate because over-consumption does not equal inherent unhealthiness. If over-consumption was a true indicator of inherent negative health affects the 8% of obese vegetarians you mention would show that over consuming vegetables causes the negative health effects associated with obesity. [Con 2] is problematic; the author is simply unqualified, her brief bio gives no indication of having a degree in anything, she is extremely biased and only provides one citation for her entire 15 point article. More importantly all of her points are contingent on the immorality of factory farming, which as I've stated in Round 2 does not divert from meat being inherently unhealthy or immoral because there are healthy and moral ways of raising cattle [2][5][6][Con 8]. The findings of [Con 3] can also be refuted, Point 4 Source [1] quote "It is true that processed meat is associated with an increased risk of cancer, especially colon cancer ... Two review studies, one that looked at data from 35 studies and the other from 25 studies, found that the effect for unprocessed red meat was very weak for men and nonexistent for women. " This implies it is the process, not the meat that causes cancer. [Con 4] is 42 pages long, I only read the first page and found that it, like [Con 1], was critical of SAD for its health effects. This does not prove meat is inherently bad, fish for example is low in fat and has positive health effects [3]. Also [Con 4] says Chimps eat monkeys, if sentience is such an issue then why don't chimps respect the sentience of monkeys? (I'll address this in more detail later). [Con 5] is from PETA an organization well known for its bias against eating meat. Like [Con 2] the arguments are almost entirely based on factory farming, which again is irrelevant in the face of free range farming [5][6][Con 8]. [Con 6] is PETA India, it has the same bias and credibility as [Con 2]. Point 4 for example says that meat is bad because if you under cook it then you could get bird flu. Ok, by this logic vegetables are bad because if you don't clean them you could get E. Coli. As I said in the beginning of Round 2 "Like all food the health factor is not necessarily the food itself but how it is prepared and produced." [Con 7] is my personal favorite. By citing this source you show how truly desperate you are to grasp at straws. This source made me understand why you did not disclose them in your debate, as it has no scientific value whatsoever, it simply bullet points propaganda without any evidence. Let's read some of the findings of SupremeMasterTV.com. Eating meat causes "Blue tongue disease", what is this? Oh right it's a disease that only affects livestock and not humans [7]. The other diseases are food borne illnesses from improper cooking. In your rebuttal you state "Studies have shown that an Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian diet is the most healthy diet of all." Meaning that those who drink milk and eat eggs along with vegetables have the best diet of all (this is not a vegan diet, in Round 1 you said you'd argue as a vegan). But Lo! [Con 7] says drinking milk is bad! It causes "Breast, prostate and testicular cancer from hormones present in milk; Listeria and Crohn's disease; Hormones and saturated fat lead to osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes and heart disease; Linked to higher incidences of multiple sclerosis." Still think drinking milk is cool? [Con 8] is written by the same author as [Con 4] and as such contains the exact same arguments. Also I don't think you actually read this article because the author lays out a plan for rational meat eating in the section "Toward Rational Meat Eating" so yea ... you're helping me with this one. [Con 9] I admit this article does seem legitimate and has sources. However this argument doesn't help you in the way you might think, it focuses on factory farming and it acknowledges meat can be environmentally friendly "Chicken is probably the best land animal to eat, certainly in terms of climate change impact. Fish have a low greenhouse gas impact but are being eaten in such large quantities that many are at risk of extinction." "Even limiting one's meat consumption to chicken yields major environmental benefits--not to mention health and financial benefits." So eating chicken yields health benefits ... Interesting. [Con 10] was about jacana birds being influenced by human scientists to commit infanticide. I don't see how this proves anything more than humans encouraged behavior that only humans would consider immoral. If anything this goes to show killing animals is not an issue of morality. For the sake of science (as suppose to survival) humans encouraged these birds kill each others babies. Are these scientists immoral for encouraging nature? Eating Meat Can be Healthy: For the bulk of this section please read Round 2. This section is for counter arguments. Given that none of your statistics are properly cited they can be seen as fiction. You clearly dramatize the negative health effects of meat, if meat was so bad then why would doctors recommend it as part of a balanced diet [2][3][8]? Quoting Con "Aquamarine animals can often cause toxins, for all those fish which are high in Omega 3 are also extremely high in mercury. Those which are not like Salmon may cause many other diseases, and may also create bowel issues." Ah yes, Harvard disagrees quote "Environmental Protection Agency " calculated that if 100,000 people ate farmed salmon twice a week for 70 years, the extra PCB intake could potentially cause 24 extra deaths from cancer"but would prevent at least 7,000 deaths from heart disease. Second, levels of PCBs and dioxins in fish are very low, similar to levels in meats, dairy products, and eggs. Third, more than 90 percent of the PCBs and dioxins in the U.S. food supply come from such non-seafood sources, including meats, dairy, eggs, and vegetables." [3] Morality of Meat: Appeal to Nature In Round 2 I specifically acknowledge the possible flaw in this argument "However just because an animal does something does not give us the right to copy them blindly. It is our advanced intelligence and our appeal to morality that sets us apart from the lesser animals." It"s important to note humans are animals, and as such comparison to other animals is legitimate (it's kind of how biology and anthropology work). You yourself make this a moral underpinning in Round 1 "" it is wrong to kill [animals], as it is wrong to kill humans." But why? What makes them like us? You argue mammals are sentient like us, they feel emotion like we do, so they should be spared. You think that just because chimps can love each as humans can love each other this somehow negates the fact that chimps are equally enthusiastic about killing lesser yet still sentient primates like monkeys [Con 4], humans eat monkeys too ya know. Because we can feel love somehow all mammals are entitled to our good graces. Even if I agreed with your pan-mammalism philosophy fish and chicken aren't mammals what claim to familiarity do they have? When it comes to rape and infanticide there are obvious pro-human arguments against it, if your only argument against eating mammals is 'well you wouldn't eat a human!' then I'm afraid the moral connection falls flat. New Citation: [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://www.mayoclinic.org... |
43 | d23e00ce-2019-04-18T11:44:21Z-00000-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Movies should not be banned. What is the work of the police? To reduce the rate of crime since crime cannot be eliminated. So, why would the police or government as you said not want movies to be banned if it will reduce crime rate. And you said you could make a theory that water is poisonous for the human body. Who on earth told you that this days theories are made just base on ideas. Theories are made base on scientific research, they employ scientific method in trying to analyse and explain social phenomenon. They make assumption's, observation's and experimentation in trying to explain social fact, so don't have the idea that every layman can make his own theory. I can see that you have no objection to fast and furious Pro, that's good. You also said something about banning all entertainment and news. No body said that we should banned News, Radio, Newspaper or Play, Pro what is the topic of concern here. I want movies to be ban not News, Radio or Newspaper. Let me ask you one thing, What do you think is use as a method of entertainment and news in the past? Am sure you know the answer, Radio and Newspaper. News are being spread around the globe through the use of radio and newspapers in the 19th, that is why their is low crime rate in old era because the technology that brought movies have done more harm than good. So, why should we not continue to use the previews method of spreading information and news. As you can see the visuality of reality show on movies make people curious to see the bad side of the global world. If information can be spread through non-visual means like newspaper's and radio, why do we need movies or television at all. The only different between movies and events in radio is visualization, and if seeing this visuality will lead to more crime as we could see in today's world why would we not banned movies. Of course I will not say that watching movie is the only method to learn criminal act but it is one of the methods. Take a look at wrestling movies, A lot of people died while trying to do what the wrestlers does on stage in the real life. I have experience this myself, my brother was a great fan of Randy Orton and he try to do his finishing movies on his colleague and he broke his arm, so tell me if wrestling will lead to social calamity why do we need it. Of course, I did not say that every movie is bad, but if bad ones are more than the good ones, why should we not banned them. Take a look at the world in the past, people live a happy world even without movies, what are the novels for, they are made base on mirror of the society. So, I will conclude that life will continue to be sweet without movies, let us read novels, listen to plays and entertainment on radio and read news in the newspaper. |
33 | a33194f5-2019-04-18T18:29:39Z-00006-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Marijuana should become legalised I am sorry to say that I will be unable to post my arguments this round (I cannot access my arguments at this time); thus, I will be using the fifth spare round (which I am now very grateful for) to compensate for this one. I apologize for passing this round, and hopefully it will not happen again. |
14 | 15445abc-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00008-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation. I'm really not getting much luck in the scope of opponents with this resolution. |
28 | 10dba703-2019-04-18T16:38:10Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | should prostitution be legalised 10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution 1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry. 2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking. 3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it. 4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution. 5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution 6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution. 7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings. 8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women"s health. 9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women"s choice. 10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized. In the next round,I will describe each of the points in detail |
17 | 8a2c0d8d-2019-04-18T17:34:59Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | FDR was not a great president. Con Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote |
12 | 5504cb87-2019-04-18T16:02:19Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway I'm not establishing any rights. The only rights that have been established is the 1st amendment's freedom of religion is extended to corporations (or at least 90% of corporations) through this ruling. So we're clear, no one is forcing the owners of Hobby Lobby to take birth control they morally object to. Don't take them if you don't want to. No one is forcing employees of Hobby Lobby to take birth control they object to. Don't take them if you don't want to. The only force being applied is the corporation Hobby Lobby is forcing it's employees to take certain kind of birth control. Why should one's employer's religious views be imposed upon the healthcare available to me? Here's what Hobby Lobby should be worried about - Does the employee show up on time? Do the employee work hard? That's all an employer should be worried about. The tradition standard of what kind of insurance the corporation decides to provide remains unanswered, but could make for plenty of cost-savings for the company and plenty of "buying it yourself, we've determined your insurance isn't going to cover that." China is brought up because it calls into question the true motivation of Hobby Lobby. Is this really a religious objection, a way to save money, or just a political ploy? Religious objection's in this area (non-abortion that Hobby Lobby believes is abortion), but not in other areas on the exact same issue of abortion. Viagra is a salient point because it has no medical benefit besides erections, whereas birth control is used for legitimate medical issues beyond preventing pregnancy. This flies in the face of the overtly sexist, "why don't you buy your own?" argument. Sex being a federally protected class. Boner pills - yay! Birth control - no! Buying your own is hard when you're making minimum wage at Hobby Lobby, especially hard if you have another mouth to feed because you couldn't afford the birth control to begin with. Meanwhile, Viagra, Cialis, and vasectomies are covered. |
39 | 74038797-2019-04-18T14:16:01Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Was Jesus resurrected The minimal facts are not facts because I say so or because historian say so, I can prove you the historicity of those facts. Historical evidence demonstrates the"Gospel"of Mark was written before 37 A. D which would be about"four years or less after Jesus" crucifixion and scholars further note the"language, grammar and style used by Mark in his account of Jesus" crucifixion and resurrection (including the empty tomb) indicates Mark received the narrative from an earlier source. As noted by Oxford historian A. N. Sherwin-White, it is unprecedented anywhere in history for a legend to have arisen that fast so as to distort the account in the gospels of the resurrection. Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources. Same thing with the multiple attestations The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell,"JAAR"68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A. D. 30) (Richard Bauckham,"Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an extraordinarily early source. Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e. g. , Mark: "tomb which had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and (iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in"their"wording in contrast to Mark (e. g. ,"Matt. 27.58"="Lk. 23.52""This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. " Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have"independently"chosen exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account, differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple sources. Moreover, John is generally believed to be independent of the Synoptic Gospels. As Paul Barnett points out, "Careful comparison of the texts of Mark and John indicate that neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of incidents in common: For example, . . . the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" (Jesus and the Logic of History, 1997, pp. 104-5). Finally, the old tradition handed on by Paul to the Corinthian church, which is among the earliest traditions identifiable in the NT, refers to Jesus' burial in the second line of the tradition. That this is the same event as the burial described in the Gospels becomes evident by comparing Paul's tradition with the Passion narratives on the one hand and the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles on the other. The four-line tradition handed on by Paul is a summary of the central events of Jesus' crucifixion, burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb, and his appearances to the disciples. What about the empty tomb account? First, it was also part of the pre-Markan Passion narrative. The empty tomb story is syntactically tied to the burial story; indeed, they are just one story. "E. g. , the antecedent of "him" (Jesus) in"Mk. 16:1"is in the burial account (15:43); the women's discussion of the stone presupposes the stone's being rolled over the tomb's entrance; their visiting the tomb presupposes their noting its location in 15.47; the words of the angel "see the place where they laid him" refer back to Joseph's laying body in the tomb. As for the other Gospels, that Matthew has an independent tradition of the empty tomb is evident not only from the non-Matthean vocabulary (e. g. , the words translated "on the next day," "the preparation day," "deceiver," "guard [of soldiers]," "to make secure," "to seal"; the expression "on the third day" is also non-Matthean, for he everywhere else uses "after three days;" the expression "chief priests and Pharisees" never appears in Mark or Luke and is also unusual for Matthew), but also from"Matt. 28.15: "this story has been spread among Jews till this day," indicative of a tradition history of disputes with Jewish non-Christians. Luke and John have the non-Markan story of Peter and another disciple inspecting the tomb, which, given John's independence of Luke, indicates a separate tradition behind the story. Moreover, we have already seen that John's independence of Mark shows that he has a separate source for the empty tomb. Same method with the post mortem apprences of jesus ". http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 6"The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It"s outstandingly different in quality and quantity. " ~Antony Flew Minimal fact 1: The burial by Joseph of Armathia There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus" burial by Joseph is "very probable," since it is "almost inexplicable" why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. "1 For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is "one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus. " Minimal fact 2: Empty Why the body couldn't have been stolen: . The guards stationed at the tomb would have prevented anyone from stealing Jesus" body. . No one stealing the body would have had a reason to leave the grave clothes behind or take time to fold the burial head cloth. . The initial reactions of the disciples when they found out the tomb was empty were inconsistent with them stealing Jesus" body. (When the women reported they had seen Jesus alive, the disciples initial reaction was to think the women were talking nonsense (Luke 24:10-12). Some of the disciples did not believe Jesus had bee resurrected until after they personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes (John 20:25). Thomas didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected even though the other ten apostles told him Jesus had appeared to them (John 20:19-25) . The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the invention of that would lead the inventors to get persecuted and go to hell . Jewish propaganda presupposes empty tomb, they even paid for those who have seen it to lie . The explanation someone stole the body doesn't explain the eyewitness testimony of Jesus" post crucifixion and burial appearances Minimal fact 3: Post mortem apprences We have independent sources attesting to have seen jesus alive after his dead, even Paul who was persecuting ealy Christians have witnessed apparitions of jesus after his death . Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane. "This one returned many times, to ordinary people (Jn"20:19-21:14;"Acts 1:3). . Hallucinations come from within, from what we already know, at least unconsciously. "This one said and did surprising and unexpected things (Acts 1:4,9)"like a real person and unlike a dream. . Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't even believe it at first. Neither Peter, nor the women, nor Thomas, nor the eleven believed. They thought he was a ghost; he had to eat something to prove he was not (Lk"24:36-43). . Hallucinations do not eat. "Yet the resurrected Christ did, on at least two occasions (Lk"24:42-43;"Jn 21:1-14). . Paul was persecuting early Christians until he saw jesus and came to genuinely believe in the resurrection, he hadn't met jesus before nor did he love him, no reason for hallucinations . The disciples touched him"(Mt 28:9;"Lk24:39;"Jn"20:27). . They also spoke with him, and he spoke back. "Figments of your imagination do not hold profound, extended conversations with you, unless you have the kind of mental disorder that isolates you. But this "hallucination" conversed with at least eleven people at once, for forty days (Acts 1:3). . The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb. "This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed. The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, they wouldn't have made this up. They would get persecuted, they did get persecuted in fact. And also that unjewish belief could lead them to hell in their mind. The only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "god raised jesus from the death" as written in the scripture |
41 | 556a90b0-2019-04-18T15:17:15Z-00000-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Should Student be allowed to be on phone during school you are always playing minecraft on your phone even after the teachers tell u to put it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
7 | f219edc4-2019-04-18T17:34:00Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | "No prisoner should have the vote" I will be arguing against the motion that no prisoner should be allowed to vote. Some key terms; "The vote" - the right to political, democratic representation. Be warned, this debate will be fairly Anglo-centric; bear this in mind before accepting it. "Prisoner" - a person tried and found guilty of a crime, to whom prison time is conferred. "No prisoner" implies an absolute blanket ban on voting; the pro position must argue for this, but the con position is not an argument for every prisoner to have a vote. It is the view that some prisoners may be given the vote, and this right may be conditional. This first round is for acceptance. (This is my first debate in this format, so if I've missed anything out please let me know/provide it.) |
19 | 933d85b9-2019-04-18T16:11:47Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | should gay marriage be legal Due to you forfeiting you're turn im going to chose not elaborate any further on the topic in the pure hope that you'll come back for further discussion on the matter |
17 | d44d94da-2019-04-18T15:44:00Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Should Marijuana Be Legalized Pro"s arguments in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana greatly overstate the case. First, pro claims that marijuana is not addictive. According to Psychology Today* the most that we can say is that marijuana is not as addictive as some other substances. Between 10 to 30% of regular marijuana users develop dependency. 9% develop a serious addiction. Comparatively, only 23% of heroin users develop an addiction. While it is true that marijuana is not as addictive a heroin, that is not the same as saying that it is not addictive. Second, it is true that since marijuana was legalized in Colorado crime in Denver, the state"s largest city, has decreased by roughly 10%**. However, a large part of that drop can be attributed to the fact that an activity which was once illegal has been legalized. If theft were legalized we would also see a decrease in illegal activity because an action which was once a crime would no longer be considered illegal. Beyond this, it is difficult to give the legalization of marijuana full credit for the decrease in crime. For instance, homicide in Denver has decreased by almost 50%. It would be an extremely difficult to make a case that a full 50% of homicides in Denver were marijuana related. Third, anorexia has nothing to do with appetite. It usually centers around body issues in which a person feels hungry but chooses not to eat. Increased appetite through drug use or medication is not considered a valid treatment for anorexia.*** Beyond all this, there are some strong reasons for keep marijuana illegal for the time being. First, legalization is likely to increase overall marijuana use. This is bad for the country. Even if we ignore the negative effects of marijuana, I think that we can all agree that recreational marijuana has little to no positive effects on a person. Increased availability of marijuana would not benefit the country overall. Second, we have yet to have a long-term test of the societal effect of legalizing marijuana. Yes, crime has decreased in Denver. However, the legalization is less than a year old. Before we should even consider the success or failure of this experiment, more time needs to pass. To base any action on the results we have seen thus far would be exceedingly premature. Finally - I grant that I am going out on a limb with this last one but I think that there is some truth here - it is unlikely the marijuana sellers will suddenly become model citizens. Selling marijuana is not a crime of convenience. To sell marijuana regularly requires a consistent choice. However, small time dealers will not be able to compete in the long run with major corporations that see the money making potential of selling marijuana. When these small time dealers find that they cannot compete it is unlikely that they will find honest work. They will more likely move on to a different form of illegal activity. There will always be people out there willing to ignore the law to make a quick buck. I want that person selling marijuana. While they are harming society, if they were not selling marijuana then they will most likely be doing something that is even worse. While recreation marijuana use might not be as destructive as some other kinds of illegal activities, on the whole legalizing recreational marijuana at this point in time would be the wrong choice for our country. *Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com... **Source: http://rt.com... ***Source: https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org... |
8 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Should abortion 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 |
29 | b8f591f2-2019-04-18T17:23:08Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America Er, I'll take that as a no. |
15 | 61bcb9f0-2019-04-18T15:36:32Z-00007-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Testing Animal testing is terrible and honestly has to need anymore because of the new scientific discoveries and id like to prove my point. To stop the horrible testing done on animals |
4 | 1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00013-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced It increases the rate of crime and violence. |
39 | 147e45bd-2019-04-18T19:20:28Z-00004-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | On the compulsory minimum wage 1. Response to my opponent's observations. "First, I would like to point out that my opponent's third contention is reliant on his second." Actually, my third contention is merely that poverty reduces productivity. The *causal relationship* between the elimination of the minimum wage and poverty is reliant on my second contention, however. "Second, I would like to acknowledge that his debate refers to the existence of a compulsory minimum wage in general; however, I will accept his interpretation of the debate." While it is true that my opponent opened the scope of the debate with a general statement regarding the minimum wage, that statement concluded "in no case can a minimum wage have a positive effect." Therefore, I need only to present a case where the minimum wage has a positive effect to prove my opponent incorrect. My clarification of the resolution is a statement of a case where a minimum wage does have a positive effect. 2. Response to my opponent's counter-argument. (a) Bargaining Power My opponent has argued that the collective bargaining power of unions represents a balance against employer bargaining power that nullifies the need for the minimum wage's protective effect. My opponent is incorrect. In the United States, only 20% of all jobs are protected by a union, [1] and practically none of them are minimum wage paying jobs. [2] It is clear that any consideration of the effectiveness of the protection provided by minimum wage must be made in relation to the jobs the wages of which are affected only by minimum wage laws alone. Unions ordinarily do not exist in the lowest paying segments of the job market because forming a union would lead to an employee's termination, [3] and employees working minimum wage paying jobs rarely have a savings to rely upon to buoy themselves between jobs. [4] Therefore, unions have no deterrent effect against employers' use of bargaining power in relation to such employment. Because an employee who would need a union to mitigate the collective bargaining power of his employer could not survive the attempt (at least, not without welfare), [5] unions are insufficient to mitigate employer bargaining power. Anti-trust laws are also insufficient to distribute wealth amongst enough able competitors to ensure competitive job markets for labor, as I believe my opponent contends. Very few industries are affected by anti-trust, [6] and most low paying industries do not act competitively in the acquisition of labor. [7] Employers can afford to do this as the job market pool of laborers will always exceed the demand for employees at the lowest income level, for those qualified only for such jobs are in competition with those with greater levels of competition across a wider demographic spread. [8] Additionally, income is more important for most such industries, as they produce goods or provide services to the general public that make volume of sales more than sufficient to make the cost of the minimum wage rate of labor an irrelevancy. [9] Therefore, a strong economy matters more than a minimum wage. (b) Cost of Living My opponent suggests that "if workers do not make much more than what is required to subsist, they often unionize." This is not so. [10] Additionally, this process is equivalent to civil unrest, so it creates the very situation I praise the minimum wage for avoiding. [11] Moreover, even if workers are paid below subsistence, they may continue working because, in their minds, some money is better than none. [12] There is no bar to an employer taking advantage of such desperation. [13] Additionally, my opponent argues that the natural minimum wage is equal to twice the subsistence of the employee. My opponent has provided no justification, not even Smith's, for why this must be so. [14] My opponent feels that no person would work for less. I have shown that this is a false assumption, supra. (c) Civil Unrest The argument that the minimum wage creates civil unrest has not been made. My opponent's argument is that were there no minimum wage, there would be more jobs. Yes, there would, but those jobs would be below the minimum wage. There will always be a steady amount of replacement worker/consumers to replace those who could not subsist on such wages, [15] so there is no cause to concern oneself for the health of one's workers. [16] Without such a cause, there is no need to deflate the price of goods. [17] Even if your customer dies, there is always another desperate customer. [18] Additionally, employers may pay social undesirables and the mentally infirm less not because they are incompetent but because of their social distinction. [19] This makes them less able to find employment, which reduces the competition employers would otherwise face in hiring such individuals. [20] While laws do exist to fight discrimination based on sex, gender, age and religion,[21] they do not exist to protect individuals based on sexual orientation, criminal record, social or political unpopularity, political ideology, or speech. [22] Individuals who would be discriminated against for such factors could be easily taken advantage of without a minimum wage, and there are enough such individuals [23] as to merit concern for the effects of their poverty on ultimate productivity. Additionally, poverty results in health problems, [24] which further would burden our health care system. [25] 3. Response to my opponent's argument. (a) The Business Cycle The fact that no population of laborers is static prevents employers from ever really having to provide lowest income laborers with their "natural recompense." [26] Therefore, my opponent's contention that deflation must occur is false. Admittedly, it is common sense for employers to pay their employees an amount above that necessary to subsist upon, as this reduces civil unrest, increases productivity, and ensures the employer the best market the employer could ever realistically expect to operate within an otherwise stable society. Unfortunately, very few employers act with common sense. [27] Note that this would not reduce our nation's wealth, as certainly a few individuals would be very wealthy. It would, however, reduce our nation's security, as the costs spent fighting the resultant upsurge in crime would deplete funds set aside for other measures, such as national defense. [28] (b) The Minimum Wage Trilemma Briefly: (1)Irrelevant. Ipso facto, I need not respond to this at all. (2)Not problematic. Such jobs would likely be abusive and just as conducive to criminality. Employees are better off placated on welfare. (3)Not problematic, for the same reason as point (2). If a job would pay less than what a laborer could survive on, the job could still be economically feasible because of the dynamic consumer market. The savings on labor need not be passed on as deflation. Employers are not compelled to concern themselves with the subsistence of their workers when making a profit. [29] Replacement costs for employees are nearly irrelevant, as lowest wage paying jobs rarely require specialized skill. [30] The actual 'natural' minimum wage that an employer hiring such laborers would pay assuming ordinary intelligence and self-interest on the part of the employer and no minimum wage law is the lowest value of a bid to conduct such labor and such value as is reasonable to induce an employee to stay [31] less the value of terminating relative to the cost of training a new employee. That amount need not be one of subsistence. (c) Economic Consensus/Unemployment As per my opponent's own sources, a majority of economists do not believe that the minimum wage results in any harm. See opponent's 15. Actually, read my opponent's sources carefully, as they are supportive of my case, outdated, or founded on a logical fallacy, with few exceptions. [32] See my comment Attachment A and any continuation for sources. |
43 | c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00003-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Which water is the best water Bottled water is big business. Estimates in variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent. The global bottled water sales have increased dramatically over the past several decades, reaching a valuation of around $60 billion and a volume of more than 115,000,000 cubic metres (3.0×1010 US gal) in 2006. U.S. sales reached around 34 billion liters in 2008, a slight drop from 2007 levels. The global rate of consumption more than quadrupled between 1990 and 2005. Spring water and purified tap water are currently the leading global sellers. By one estimate, approximately 50 billion bottles of water are consumed per annum in the U.S. and around 200 billion bottles globally. |
30 | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00024-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Open carry is vulnerable to attacker trying to take weapon |
4 | cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Round 2 are arguments only, so let's start with that. First, I'll start with parental corporal punishment. Parental Corporal Punishment1. Hitting is frequently done impulsively. A study shows that parents are more likely to spank or hit their child almost immediately. In 10 minute audio recordings, it seems like the child is getting hit without them explaining why they have done their behavior. Parents usually hit out of frustration without actually thinking about the severity of what that child has done. They also spank their child for minor infractions, not just major ones. The practice of hitting a child is recommended to be the last resort, however, according to these studies, they seem to be doing it impulsively. They also recommend doing it once or twice however these audio recordings show them hitting their child a lot more than that. Basically, parents are abusing or overexaggerating moments to use the practice of corporal punishment. To extend on this, Holden states: "From the audio, we heard parents hitting their children for the most extraordinarily mundane offenses, typically violations of social convention. Also, corporal punishment wasn't being used as a last resort. On average, parents hit or spanked just half a minute after the conflict began. " [1]2. Hitting causes externalization of behavior and increases in aggression. A study from Michael Mackenzie of Columbia University indicated that maternal spanking at age 5 was associated with greater aggression and rule-breaking by the time children were age 9. In addition, lower scores on vocabulary tests by the age of 9 were also associated with the use of spanking at age 5. [2]3. Hitting children affects their development. A study from Akemi Tomoda (et al. ) showed that harsh corporal punishment reduced children's gray matter, which processes information in the brain. Another study showed that corporal punishment had a bidirectional relationship with a lower cognitive ability, meaning that parents tend to hit children with lesser cognitive ability more frequently (most likely out of frustration), and children who experience corporal punishment often had a lower cognitive ability as a result. These negative effects on the brain can surely be connected to the increased aggression and externalization of behavior found in the other studies. [2] [3] [4]3.1 Hitting causes mental illnesses. The study, named "Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders: Results From a Nationally Representative U. S. Sample," is released in the August edition of Pediatrics, which is online July 2nd. It states clearly that children who are spanked, hit or pushed have an increased risk of mental problems when they grow older. The research seems to show that the effect can range from mood and anxiety disorders to drug and alcohol abuse. Around 2% to 7% of children are affected by physical punishment. [5]Secondly, I'll talk about only one argument I have for school corporal punishment. Corporal Punishment in SchoolsCorporate punishment causes lower academic success. Aside from the infliction of pain and the physical injuries which often result from the use physical punishments, these violent disciplinary methods also impact students' academic achievement and long-term well-being. [6] Despite significant evidence that corporal punishment is detrimental to a productive learning environment, there is currently no federal prohibition on the use of physical discipline against children in public school. In fact, children in some states receive greater protection against corporal punishment in detention facilities than they do in their public schools. [7] For this reason and others, the ACLU and HRW are encouraged that this subcommittee is seeking to address the problems stemming from corporal punishment in schools. [8]Those are my arguments for round 2. Sources:[1] . https://www.sciencedaily.com...[2] . https://www.theodysseyonline.com...[3] . http://www.cnn.com...[4] . http://pubpages.unh.edu...[5] . https://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[6] See generally A Violent Education, at 57; Impairing Education, at 4-5. [7] Corporal punishment of children in juvenile justice facilities have been prohibited by the Courts of Appeals in several Federal Circuits. See Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 417 U. S. 476 (paddling of children in juvenile detention was a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment); Morales v. Turman, 562 F.2d 993, 998 (5th Cir. 1977) (corporal punishment and physical abuse in juvenile detention facilities subject to prohibition as a violation of Eighth Amendment), rev'd on other grounds, 535 F.2d 864 (5th Cir. 1976), rev'd and remanded, 430 U. S. 322 (1977). See also,Santana v. Collazo, 533 F. Supp. 966 (D. P. R. 1982) (corporal punishment against juveniles in industrial schools and juvenile camps violates Eighth Amendment and is barred "for any reason"), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 714 F.2d 1172 (lst Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U. S. 974 (1984). The American Correctional Association has also issued standards banning use of corporal punishment in juvenile facilities. See also Steven J. Martin, Staff Use of Force in United States Confinement Settings, 22 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol'y 145 (2006). In addition, corporal punishment and other harsh disciplinary practices are prohibited in publicly-funded non-medical substance abuse and long-term medical care facilities. See, e. g. , 42 U. S. C. § 290jj (banning corporal punishment in "non-medical community-based facilities for children and youth. "); 42 C. F. R. § 483.13 (banning corporal punishment in long-term medical care facilities). [8] . https://www.hrw.org... s://media. rbl. ms. .. ; alt="" data-rm-shortcode-id="0VIPEM1514055278" /> s://media. rbl. ms. .. ; alt="" data-rm-shortcode-id="ZKWD5P1514055278" /> |
28 | a21797ac-2019-04-18T17:09:29Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | abortion should be legal in every state I will take that as a concession. My adversary claims that abortion should not be legal as we can see by the topic. She says tt should be illegal. She then changes the resolution so that abortion should support cases where it could cause danger to someone. She also drops my self defense argument. Therefore extend all resolutions because she conceded that should should be legal in some circumstances and because of the remaining points that were dropped. |
45 | 5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Thanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :) ============= Pro Case: ============= Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce. 2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro "might" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios. Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan 1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources. 2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material. 3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace "China" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague. Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper 1. Cheaper than what? 2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions. Pro Contention 1B: NACS "Report" 1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place. 2. Never claimed it was a report. 3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL "F" Walgreen. Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan 1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material. Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency 1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't. Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights 1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China. =============== Neg Case: =============== Neg Contention1: 1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said "paid by each consumer," as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money. Neg Contention 2: 1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash. 2. The author of his source admits that "the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small." Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy. Neg Contention 3: 1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it? 2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss. 3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro. 4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together—just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://useconomy.about.com... |
40 | 8e56b01-2019-04-18T16:27:35Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty should be abolished. Thanks for the debate and for the arguments Dtaylor. I negate: The death penalty should be abolished. Crime and Justice international magazine explains that the criminal justice system has two purposes[1]: preventing and controlling crime, and achieving justice. Therefore if I prove that the death penalty serves one or both of these roles better than the alternative, I should win the round as I maximize the justice systems performance of its intended roles.C1: Saves lives A. Deterrence The fact is that the death penalty does deter crime because people follow their incentives, as Rothbard explains[2], "While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty." It's been observed that at least some murders would have been deterred, Luis Vera who fatally shot the tenant of an apartment he robbed in Brooklyn (where the death penalty has been abolished) later remarked[3]: "Yeah, I shot her...and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair".There have been numerous studies on the deterrent effect such as a study from Emory finding that each execution leads to 3-18 fewer murders[4]. These studies are problematic in that crime is a multilayered complex issue and the death penalty is applied very rarely, but the little literature that exists larger concludes that the death penalty deters crime. The logic points to deterrence, and with such shaky statistics that's what we need to look to. Moreover there's nothing unjust about the death penalty (or if there is, my opponent hasn't proven so) so in order to maximize it's role of preventing future crimes, the criminal justice system should err on the side of caution and keep the death penalty. If the death penalty does not deter crime and we execute some violent murderers, no harm done. All that has happened is we have a few less murderers. However if the death penalty *does* deter and we fail to execute, we fail to keep innocent people safe. B. Recidivism Quite obviously, a murderer who's been executed can never again cause a death. Sadly, the same can't be said of criminals behind bars. Clarence Ray Allen was serving a life sentence without parole for murder in California when he colluded with soon to be paroled Billy Hamilton to eliminate the witnesses against him[5]. Allen intended to gain a new trial and this time one with no witnesses. Hamilton killed three people and wounded another before an armed neighbor returned fire, driving him off. When Hamilton was arrested the next week robbing a liquor store police learned of the plot and both Hamilton and Allen were sentenced to die. The point is, imprisonment doesn't guarantee a murderer doesn't strike again. Imprisonment failed to deter Allen from causing more innocent deaths, but he certainly hasn't killed anyone since his 2006 execution. In Texas, with prisons overflowing, Kenneth McDuff, a convicted murderer who's death sentence was overturned by the supreme court, was released in 1989. He proceeded to go on a killing spree, killing at least 7 women before he was once again sentenced to die and this time finally executed[6]. C2: The death penalty is just There's no good argument against the death penalty. As John Stuart Mill argued[7]: "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall." The death penalty is a just penalty because it prescribes the most serious sentence to the most serious crime. Criminal penalties should match the crime in severity, and it's due to this that it's justified to punish a murderer with death. Since the death penalty is just, it meets the second goal of the criminal justice system. Opponents caseC1. CostThis argument shouldn't be considered because you can't put a price tag on justice or human life. Moreover it's questionable how much these statistics apply across the US as a whole considering my opponents own evidence describes the Californian death penalty system as "dysfunctional". California definitely needs to do something with it's system, either reforming it to execute more people or abolishing it altogether. If they can't get their system to actually execute people (California has an execution rate of 1.7% according to my opponents own numbers) I'm not so sure it can even be considered a death penalty. It's better to take a look at the states that actually execute people, such as Texas. My opponents source 5 argues that the death penalty in Texas costs about $500,000 more than the amount needed to put someone in prison for life. First of all, even if this is the case if the death penalty actually deters crime like the evidence shows it's well worth the extra $500k. Secondly, the analysis says without a citation that the average cost for a non-death penalty murder trial is $3000. Theres no way that's true. Accurate numbers on the cost of murder trials are surpisingly hard to find, but as a typical example the Dunn murder trial cost taxpayers nearly $100,000[8]. I think the numbers on the cost of the death penalty in Texas are probably accurate and should be used to determine how much a workable death penalty system actually costs. An analysis from Iowa State University calculated the total economic cost of murder in terms of lost productivity, judicial costs, and other economic factors determined that the average murder costs society about $17.2 million[9]. So even using the extremely conservative cost estimate from my opponents source, if each execution in a workable system costs about $500,000 more than life without parole, if just one murder is deterred or one case of recidivism stopped for every 34 executions, society breaks even on the tangible costs (.5 million x 34 = 17 million) nonwithstanding the moral benefits of having another person alive which causes us to come out on top. Moreover this fails to take into account plea bargaining. The threat of death causes criminals to plead guilty much more often than they do in non death penalty jurisdictions[10] forgoing the costs of the trial all together. C2. DeterrenceThe analysis of death penalty states to non death penalty states is comparing apples to oranges. I could cite lower murder rates in European countries that have abolished life without parole (such as Norway) to prove that life without parole doesn't deter murder just as easily. The facts are laid out in my case: Studies have shown a deterrence effect, as does logic and an admission from an actual murderer. Really the issue boils down to "do criminal penalties deter crime?" and I think we can all agree the answer is a resounding yes. If the threat of punishment deters crime, it follows that harsher penalties would decrease crime more.Pro cites a survey from criminologists stating that the majority of them don't believe the death penalty deters crime, but I have to wonder their reasoning which is not given. I won't argue that this doesn't present some trouble for the deterrence argument, but I think the evidence I've given outweighs it. Remember, if we deter even one murder from 34 executions we've come out on top. The small amount of executions if this were the true rate would lead to about 1-2 murders deterred a year which would have absolutely no effect on the murder rate but would still be beneficial for society overall. I think it's a safe assumption that *some* murder is deterred by the threat of the death penalty and that the true number is likely higher than 1 or 2 a year. C3. Innocence My opponent cites 144 innocents released from death row. This proves that the current system is working in freeing the innocent, and if you look through the list of released inmates almost all (all but 3) were convicted in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and not one has been convicted since 2003. It's *because* of statistics like these that death sentences are on the decline and have been for a while, Jurors are becoming increasingly reluctant to send someone to die without extremely hard evidence. Moreover huge advances in technology are lessening the probability of convicting an innocent every day. It comes down to a cost benefit analysis--I showed at least 10 people killed by murderers because they didn't get the death penalty, which far outweighs the (possibly innocent) one person my opponent cited. C4. Lessons I'm not too sold on this argument. We shouldn't care that much about teaching criminals right from wrong when compared to the innocent lives that could be saved. Moreover I think that putting murderers in a position where they're forced to "meet their maker" will cause them to think about their actions more than 3 hot meals a day until they die of old age will, not to mention the utter depravity of the crimes most murderers are on death row for. Sources:1. http://www.cjimagazine.com...2. http://mises.org...3. http://faculty.mdc.edu...4. http://www.washingtonpost.com...5. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...6. http://en.wikipedia.org...7. http://ethics.sandiego.edu...8. http://www.firstcoastnews.com...9. http://www.soc.iastate.edu...10. http://www.cjlf.org... |
36 | b4a40a7b-2019-04-18T15:32:25Z-00002-000 | Is golf a sport? | Science Vs Christians "We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes "the world" is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics..." -Richard Feynman. http://vimeo.com... Stephen Hawking's Universe- The Story of Everything (2010). Our Current views on the motion of bodies date back to Galileo and Newton. Previously, views on the motion of bodies dated back to Aristotle. Sir Issac Newton wondered, why do objects move, why do they stop, and why things fall to the earth. Newton, claimed it hit him when an apple fell from a tree. He proposed that objects are pulled by a force in which he called gravity. This was the start of a revolution in science. http://touch.dailymotion.com... Stephen Hawking's Grand Design- The Key To The Cosmos Aristotle stated that the natural state of a body was at rest, and that it only moved if driven by force. This followed that a heavy body should fall at a higher velocity than a lighter one, because it would have a greater pull to the earth. Furthermore, he proposed the laws of the universe could be worked out by thought, and observation was not necessary. As a result, those who accepted the Aristotelian tradition never bothered to see whether bodies of different weights did fall at different rates of speed. However, Galileo Galilei, demonstrated this belief to be inaccurate with an experiment. To explain, he rolled balls of different weights down a smooth slope, and found the bodies increase their speed at the same rate. galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu... In this experiment, Galileo found, that a body will increase it's velocity per distance fallen: X=(a*t")/2. These measurements were used by Newton as a basis in his laws of motion. In 1687, Newton made a publication, "Principia Mathematica" in which he stated that a body not acted on by any force, moves in the same direction at the same velocity. However, when acted on by a force, a body will change it's speed proportional to the force. In addition, he discovered that every body attracts every other body with a force that is proportional to the mass of each body. Therefore, it was governed by a few concepts, the mass of the objects and their distance apart. http://www.physicsclassroom.com... http://plato.stanford.edu... An example would be provided by a car: the greater the engine power, the greater the acceleration, but the heavier the car, the smaller the acceleration for the same engine. On the other hand, a lead weight would fall faster than a feather, but only because it is slowed down by air resistance: F grav-F air/m2=a. Concurrently, David R Scott demonstrated that a feather and a lead weight does fall at the same rate on the moon, where there is no air resistance. Therefore, a heavier body will have twice the force of gravity pulling: F grav=(G*m1*m2)/d", but will also have twice the mass. According to Newton's second law, these two effects will cancel each other, so the acceleration will be the same in all cases: F grav/m2=(G*m1)/d"=a. http://m.youtube.com... Newton's laws of gravity would predict the motion of bodies within our solar system with great accuracy. To emphasize, his law states that the gravitational attraction of a star is exactly one fourth that of a similar star half the distance. On the other hand, if the law were that the gravitational attraction of a star, decreased or increased more rapidly with distance, the orbits of planets would not be elliptical, would spiral in to the sun, or escape it's orbit within the solar system. However, this new view of absolute rest did not set well with Newton. To explain, his measurements indicated that one could not give an event an absolute position in space. Furthermore, Newton believed in an absolute God, and refused to accept the implications of his own laws. Both Aristotle and Newton believed in absolute time. To explain, they believed two individuals could unambiguously measure the interval between two events and reach the same measurement. Furthermore, space and time were not yet connected as we now understand it to be. Eleven years earlier than Newton's publication in 1676, Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Roemer, observed that the moons did not orbit around Jupiter at a constant rate, as one might expect. Furthermore, he noticed the lunar eclipses of Jupiter appeared much later the further our distance from Jupiter. Thus, he argued that light travels at a high but finite speed. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu... Roemer's measurements indicated that light travels at 140,000 miles per second. However, a proper theory of the propagation of light did not come until 1865, when British physicist James Clerk Maxwell began to study a strange realm of science, the connection between electricity and magnetism. Furthermore, he succeeded in unifying the partial theories used to describe the forces of electricity and magnetism. For Maxwell, it was quite simple, move a magnet toward a wire and you will cause electricity to flow through the wire. Put electricity through a wire and it will act like a magnet and deflect a compass. He connected electricity, magnetism, and light in a few simple equations, known as Maxwell's laws. http://www.askamathematician.com... These laws govern everything from the Auroras that dance across the night sky to the modern electrical and communications technology that powers the planet. Maxwell's equations predicted that there could be wavelike disturbances in the combined electromagnetic fields, and these would travel at high speeds, like ripples in a pond. To emphasize, if the wavelength of these waves is a meter or more, they are radio waves, microwaves are a few centimeters, visible light forty to eighty millionths of a centimeter, and even shorter wavelengths are known as gamma rays. He soon concluded that light was also an electromagnetic wave. In addition, Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. However, Newton's theory had gotten rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was relative to. This lead to the experiment by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887. To explain, they predicted that just as water waves are waves that travel in water, and sound waves are waves that travel through a medium, light waves are waves that travel through something in which they called, "luminiferous ether". If this were true, then it should effect the speed of light, and it should be measurable. However, during the experiment, they found no difference in the speed of light no matter which direction they looked. As a result, they concluded that this ether does not exist, and were embarrassed to report they had been wrong. But, this was one of the most important mistakes in the history of science. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu... In 1905, Albert Einstein pointed out in his paper, called relativity, that the idea of ether was unnecessary, providing one was willing to abandon the idea of absolute time. To emphasize, he proposed that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers. To explain, Einstein, developed a thought experiment, he asked, "If I were running along side a beam of light, what I would see?" It would only make since traveling at approximately 186,000 miles per second, a beam of light would appear stationary. Later he found that if he was traveling at the speed of light, it would appear to dash away at the speed of light relative to his own point of view. He imagined a train from two points of view, on the train, and a stationary position from outside the train. The observer on the train observes the light on the train car reaching the end of the car at the speed of light. However, a viewer from the trackside see's the end of the train moving toward the beam of light, therefore has a smaller distance to travel. As a result, this idea had some remarkable consequences, most notably the equivalence of mass and energy, and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. To explain why, the energy which an object has due to it's motion will add to it's mass, thus making it harder to increase it's speed. Therefore, an object would never reach the speed of light, because by then it's mass would have become infinite, and it would take an infinite amount of energy to get there. http://www.pitt.edu... The special Theory of Relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers, but it was inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity. To explain, Newton's theory of gravity explained that objects are attracted with a force dependent on the distance between them. Finally, in 1915, he developed what is known as the general theory of relativity. To emphasize, he suggested that spacetime is not flat, as previously assumed: it is curved, or "warped", by the distribution of mass and energy in it. In addition, gravity can be thought of as a hole in a body of water that stretches out forever, this hole would cause water to drain away effecting anything that falls within its distortion. Furthermore, light too would be effected by the distortion in spacetime which was confirmed later by Arthur Eddington in 1919. "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."- Einstein http://www.aip.org... Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a point of gravity, such as the earth. To explain why, there is a relation between the energy of light and it's frequency: the greater the energy, the higher the frequency. As light travel upward, it loses energy and it's frequency goes down. To someone high up, it would appear that everything below was taking longer to happen, and vice versa. 1962, a pair if very accurate clocks were mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower, and was found to run at two different speeds, in agreement with general relativity. The difference in the speed of clocks at different heights above the earth is now of considerable practical importance, with the advent of very accurate navigation systems based on signals from satellites. If one ignores the predictions of general relativity, the positions that one calculated would be wrong by several miles. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au... Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. Concurrently, this was true even of the special theory of relativity. To emphasize, bodies moved, forces attracted and repelled, but time and space simply continued, unaffected. However, according to the general theory of relativity, space and time are dynamic quantities: when a body moves or a force acts, it affects the curvature of spacetime- and in turn, the structure of spacetime affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. In conclusion, space and time not only affects, but is also affected by everything that occurs in the universe. Therefore, the old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed, could continue to exist, was forever replaced by the notion of dynamic, expanding universe that seemed to begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the near future. The Expanding universe. Most stars are visible to the naked eye within a few hundred lights years from us. In fact, these stars appear spread all over the night sky, but are particularly concentrated in one band, which we call the Milky Way. As long ago as 1750, some astronomers suggested that the appearance of the Milky Way could be explained if most of the visible stars lie in a single disklike configuration, one example of what we now call a spiral galaxy. Only a few decades later, the astronomer Sir William Herschel confirmed this idea by painstakingly cataloging the positions and distances of vast numbers of stars. Our modern picture of the universe dates back to only 1924, when American astronomer Edwin Hubble demonstrated that ours was not the only galaxy. Instead, there were many others, with vast tracts of empty space between them. In order to prove this, he needed to determine the distances to these galaxies, which are so far away. However, Hubble was forced to use indirect methods to measure the distances. For example, the brightness of a star depended on two factors, how much light it radiates (it's luminosity), and it's distance from us. For nearby stars, we can measure their apparent brightness and their distance, therefore we can work out their luminosity. On the other hand, if we knew the luminosity of stars in other galaxies, we could work out their distance by measuring their apparent brightness. Hubble noted that certain types of stars always have the same luminosity when they are near enough for us to measure; therefore, he argued, if we found such stars in another galaxy, we could assume they had the same luminosity- and so calculated the distance to that galaxy. If we could do this for a number of stars in the same galaxy, and our calculations always gave the same distance, we could be fairly confident of our estimate. Using this method, Hubble worked out the distances to nine different galaxies. With modern telescopes, we have determined, some hundred thousand million galaxies, each containing some hundred thousand million stars. Stars are so far away that they appear to be just pin points in the sky, and we cannot determine their size or shape. So how can we tell different types of stars apart? For the vast majority of stars, there is only one character feature that we can " the color of their light. Newton discovered that if light from the sun pass through a triangular-shaped piece of glass, called a prism, it breaks up into it's component color (it's spectrum) as in a rainbow. By focusing on an individual star or galaxy, one can similarly observe the spectrum of the light from that star or galaxy. Different stars have different spectra, but relative brightness of different colors is always exactly what one would expect to find in the light emitted by an object that is glowing red hot. The light emitted by any opaque object that is glowing red hot has a characteristic spectrum that depends on it's temperature " a thermal spectrum. This means we can tell a star's temperature from the spectrum of it's light. Moreover, we find that very specific colors from the star's spectra, and these missing colors may vary from star to star. Since we know that each chemical element absorbs a characteristic set of very specific colors, by matching these to those that are missing from a star's spectrum, we can determine exactly which elements are present in the star's atmosphere. In the 1920's, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own galaxy, but they were all shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Visible light consist of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven millionths of a metre. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously, the wavelength of waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted. Suppose now that the source of light starts moving toward us. When the source the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between waves crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means the wavelength we receive is shorter, than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelengths we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore this means stars moving away from us, will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue shifted. This relationship between wavelengths and speed, which is called the Doppler effect, is an everyday experience. Imagine your standing on a race track and a car passes you by, you might notice the pitch of the engine increases as it approaches you and decreases as it passes you by. The behavior of light or radio waves is similar. Indeed, the police make use if the Doppler effect to measure the speed of cars by measuring the wavelength of pulses of radio waves reflected off of them. In the following years, Hubble spent his time cataloging the distances of other galaxies, and observing their spectra. At that time, people expected the galaxies to be moving around quite randomly, and so expected to find as many blue-shifted spectra as red-shifted ones. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appeared red shifted: nearly all were moving away from us (recession). More surprising still was the finding Hubble published in 1929: even the size of a galaxy's distance from us. Or, in other words, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away! And that meant the universe could not be static, as everyone had previously thought, but is in fact expanding between the different is growing all the time. The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century. With hindsight, it is easy to wonder why no one had thought of it before. Newton, and others, should have realized that a static universe would soon start to contract under the influence of gravity. But supposed instead that the universe was expanding. If it was expanding fairly slowly, the force of gravity would cause it to stop expanding and then to start contracting. However, if it was expanding at a more critical rate, gravity would never be strong enough to stop it, and the universe would expand forever. This is a bit like what happens when one fires a rocket upward from the surface of the earth. If it has a fairly low speed, gravity will eventually stop the rocket and it will start falling back. On the other hand, if it has more than a certain critical speed (about seven miles per second) gravity will not be strong enough to pull it back, so it will keep going away forever. This behavior of the universe could have been predicted from newton's theory of gravity at any time in the nineteenth century, or even the late seventh centuries. Yet so strong was the belief in a static universe that it persisted into the early twentieth century. Even Einstein, when he formed the general theory of relativity in 1915, was so sure that the universe had to be static that he modified his theory to make it possible, introducing the so-called cosmological constant into his equations. Einstein introduced a new, "antigravity" force, which unlike other forces, did not come from any particular force but was built in to the very fabric of spacetime. He claimed that spacetime had a built in tendency to to expand, and this could be made to balance exactly the attraction of all the universe, so that a static universe would result. Only one man, it seems, was willing to take general relativity at face value, and while Einstein and other physicists were looking for ways to avoid general relativity's predictions of a non-static universe, the Russian physicist and mathematician. Alexander Friedmann instead set out explaining it. Friedmann made two very simple assumptions about the universe: that the universe looks identical in whichever direction we look, and this would be true if we were observing the universe anywhere else. From these two ideas alone, Friedmann showed that we should not expect the universe to be static. In fact, in 1922, several years before Edwin Hubble's discovery, Friedmann predicted exactly what Hubble found. http://www.atnf.csiro.au... The assumption that the universe looks exactly the same in every direction is clearly not true in reality. For example, as we have seen, the other stars form a distinct band of light across the night sky, called the Milky Way. But if we look at distant galaxies, there seems to be more or less the same number of them. So the universe does seem to be roughly the same in every direction, provided one views it on a large scale compared to the distances between them, and ignores the differences on small scales. For a long time, this was sufficient justification for Friedmann's assumptions " as a rough approximation to the real universe. But more recently, a lucky accident uncovered the fact that Friedmann's assumptions is in fact a remarkably accurate description of our universe. In 1965, two American physicists at Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were testing a very sensitive microwave detector. Penzias and Wilson were worried when their detector was picking up more noise than it ought to. First they discovered bird droppings in their detector and checked for other possible malfunctions, but soon ruled these out. They knew that any noise from in the atmosphere would be stronger when the detector was not pointing straight up than when it was, because light rays travel through much more atmosphere when received from horizon than when received from directly overhead. The extra noise was the same which ever direction the detector was pointing, so it must come from outside the atmosphere. It was the same day and night and throughout the year, even though the earth was rotating on it's axis and orbiting around the sun. This showed that the radiation must come from beyond the Solar System, and even from beyond the galaxy, as otherwise it would vary as the movement of earth pointed the detector in different directions. In fact, we know that radiation must have traveled to us across most of the observable universe, and since it appears to be the same in different directions, the universe must also be the same in every direction, if only on a large scale. We know that whichever direction we look, the noise never varies by more than a tiny fraction: so Penzias and Wilson had unwittingly stumbled across a remarkably accurate confirmation of Friedman's first assumption. However because the universe is not exactly the same in every direction, but only on average on a large scale, the microwaves can not be exactly the same in every direction either. There have to be slight variations between different directions. These were first detected in 1992 by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, or COBE, at a level of about one part in a hundred thousand. Small as these variations are they are very important. At roughly the same time as Penzias and Wilson were investigating noise in their detector, two American physicists at a nearby Princeton University, Bob Dicke and Jim Peebles, were also taking an interest in microwaves. They were working on a suggestion, made by George Gamow (once a student of Alexander Friedmann), that the early universe should have been very hot and dense, glowing white hot. Dicke and Peebles argued that we should still be able to see a glow of the early universe, because light from very distant parts of it would only just be reaching us now. However, the expansion of the universe meant that this light should be so greatly red-shifted that it appear to us as microwave radiation. Dicke and Peebles were preparing to look for this when Penzias and Wilson heard about their work and realized they had already found it. For this, Penzias and Wilson was awarded the Nobel prize in 1978. Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same in whichever direction we look might suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all of the other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe universe might look the same in every direction from any galaxy, too. This as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption.However we have no evidence to verify Friedmann's second assumption- it is commonly accepted on the ground of modesty. Based on these assumptions, he predicted exactly what Edwin Hubble found in 1924. Friedmann's model can be compared to a balloon with a number of spots painted on it being steadily blown up- as the balloon expands, the distance between any two spots increase, but no spot can be said to be the center of expansion. In Friedmann's model the galaxies were also moving apart proportional to the distance between them. Thus, the red shift of a galaxy should be proportional to it's distance from us- exactly what Hubble found. Despite the success of his model and his prediction of Hubble's observation, Friedmann's work remained largely unknown in the West until similar models were discovered in 1935 by American physicist Howard Robertson and British mathematician Arthur Walker, In response to Hubble's discovery of the uniform expansion of the universe. Although Friedmann found only one, there are three models that obey: 1) The universe is expanding sufficiently slowly that the gravitation between the different galaxies causes expansion to slow down and eventually stop- thus the universe would eventually collapse. In this model, space is bent in on itself, like the surface of the earth (and is therefore finite in extent). 2) It is expanding so rapidly that the gravitation can never stop it. In this model, space is bent like the surface of a saddle (and is therefore infinite). 3) The universe is expanding just fast enough to avoid recollapse. In this model, space is flat (and therefore space is also infinite). But which model describes our universe? Will the universe stop expanding and start contracting, or will it expand forever? To answer this question we need to know the present rate of expansion of the universe and it's present average density. If the density is less than a certain critical value, determined by the rate of expansion, the gravitational attraction will be too weak to halt the expansion. If the density is greater than the critical value, gravity will stop the expansion at some point in the future and cause the universe to recollapse. We can determine the present rate of expansion by measuring the velocities at which other galaxies are moving away from us, using the Doppler's effect. This can be done very accurately. However, the distance to the galaxies are not very well known because we can only measure them indirectly. So all we know is the universe is expanding by between 5% and 10% every thousand million years. However, our uncertainty about the present average density of the universe is even greater. If we add up all the stars that we can see in our galaxy and other galaxies, the total is less than one hundredth of the amount required to halt the expansion of the universe, even for the lowest estimate of the rate of expansion. Our galaxy and other galaxies, however, must contain a large amount of "dark matter" that we cannot see directly, but which we know must be there because of the influence of it's gravitational attraction on the orbits of stars in the galaxies. Moreover, most galaxies are found in clusters, and we can similarly infer the presence of yet more dark matter in between the galaxies in these clusters by it's effects on the motion of galaxies. When we add up all this dark matter, we still only get about one tenth of the amount required to halt expansion. However we can not exclude the possibility that there might be some other form of matter, distributed almost uniformly throughout the universe, that we have not yet detected and might still raise the average density of the universe up to the critical value needed to halt the expansion. The present evidence therefore suggests that the universe will probably expand forever, but all we can really be sure of is that if the universe is going to recollapse, it won't do so for at least anther ten thousand million years, since it has already been expanding for at least that long. This should not unduly worry us: by that time, unless we have colonized beyond the Solar System, mankind will long since have died out, extinguished along with our sun! All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that at some time in the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have to be infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann's solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space time is flat, so they break down at the singularity, where curvature of space time is infinite. This means one could not use them to determine what would happen afterwards, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as if the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had to be a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was called the steady state theory. It was suggested in 1948 by two refugees from Nazi-occupied Austria, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, together with a Briton, Fred Hoyle, who had worked with them on the development of radar during the war. The idea was that as galaxies moved away from each other, new galaxies were continually forming in the gaps in between, from new matter that was being continually created. The universe would therefore look roughly the same at all times as well at all points of space. The steady state theory required a modification of general relativity to allow for the continual creation of matter, but the rate that was involved was so low that it was not in conflict with experiment. The theory was a good scientific theory, in the sense it was simple and it made definite predictions that could be tested by observation. One of these predictions was that a number of galaxies or similar objects in any given volume of space should be the same wherever and whenever we look in the universe. In the late 1950's and early 1960's a survey of sources of radio waves from outer space was carried out at Cambridge by a group of astronomers led by Martin Ryle (who had also worked with Bond I, Gold, and Hoyle on radar during the war). The Cambridge group showed that most of the radio sources must lie outside our galaxy (indeed many of them could be identified with other galaxies) and also that there were many more weak sources than strong one's. They interpreted the weak sources as being the more distant ones, and the stronger ones as being nearer. Then there appeared to be less common sources per unit volume of space for the nearby sources than for the distant ones. This could mean that we are at the center of a great region in the universe in which the sources are fewer than elsewhere. Alternatively, it could mean that the sources were more numerous in the past, at the time that the radio waves left on their journey to us, than they are now. Either explanation contradicted the predictions of the steady state theory. Moreover, the discovery of the microwave radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 also indicated that the universe must have been much more denser in the past. The steady state theory therefore had to be abandoned. Another theory, in response to Friedman's model stated that not everything had to go back to a single point but really close together. However this model was supported by Friedman's expanding universe. In 1965 British mathematician and physicist, Roger Penrose showed that a star collapsing under it's gravity is trapped in a region who's surface eventually shrinks to zero size. And, since the surface of the region shrinks to zero, so too it's volume. All of the matter in the star will be compressed to a region of zero volume, so the density of matter and the curvature of space-time becomes infinite. His theorem had shown that any star must end in a singularity; the time reverse argument showed that any Friedmann-like expanding universe must have begun with a singularity. Aristotle believed that all of matter in the universe was made up of four basic elements- earth air, fire, and water. These elements were acted upon by two forces; gravity, and levity. In addition he believed that matter was continuous, that is, one could cut a piece of matter into smaller and smaller bits without limit. On the other hand, the Greeks, such as Democritus, held that matter was inherently made up of large numbers of Atoms. (Meaning "indivisible" to the Greeks.) For Centuries the arguments continued without supporting evidence on either side. Later, in 1803 British chemist and physicist John Dalton pointed out that the fact that chemical compounds always combined in certain proportions could be explained by the grouping together of atoms to form units called molecules. However, this argument was not settled in favor of atomists until 1905, by Albert Einstein. Before his paper on special relativity (not to be confused with the general theory of relativity) Einstein pointed out that what was called the Browning motion- the irregular random motion of small particles of dust suspended in liquid- could be explained as the effects of atoms of the liquid colliding with liquid particles. By this time there were already suspicions that these atoms were not, after all, indivisible. Four notable figures, known for the discovery of various subatomic particles are listed with attachments available. Trinity College, J.J. Thomson. http://www.biography.com... 1911, Ernest Rutherford. http://www.biography.com... Cambridge, James Chadwick. http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk... Before 1969, it was thought that protons and neutrons were elementary. However, experiments indicated that, they too were made up of smaller particles- called quarks. Caltech physicist Murray Gell-Mann. https://the-history-of-the-atom.wikispaces.com... http://m.particleadventure.org... So the question is: What are the truly elementary particles, the basic building blocks from which everything is made? Since the wavelength of light is much larger than the size of an atom, we cannot hope to "look" at the parts of an atom in the ordinary way. Quantum physics tells us that all particles are in fact waves, and the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the wavelength of the corresponding wave. (http://www.pitt.edu...). So the best answer we can give to our question depends on how high energy a particle we have at our disposal, because this determines how small a length scale we can look. These particles are measured in units called electron volts. (https://www.princeton.edu...). In the nineteenth century, when the only particles that people knew how to use were the low energies of a few electron volts generated by chemical reactions such as burning, it was thought that atoms were the smallest units. In Rutherford's experiment, the alpha-particles had energies of millions of electron volts. More recently, we have learned how to use electromagnetic fields to give particles of at first millions and then thousands of millions of electron volts. And so we know that particles that were thought to be "elementary" are, in fact, made up of smaller particles. Using wave/particle duality, everything in the universe, including light and gravity, can be described in terms of particles. These particles have a property called spin. One way to think of spin is to imagine the particles spinning on it's axis. However this can be misleading, because quantum mechanics tells us that particles do not have any well-defined axis. (http://spinningparticles.com...). The matter particles obey what is called the Pauli's exclusion principle. This was first discovered in 1925 by Australian physicist Wolfgang Pauli- for which he received the Nobel prize in 1945. (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...). A proper theory of the electron and other 1/2 spin particles did not come until 1928, proposed by Paul Dirac. (http://www.nobelprize.org...), and ( http://www.pha.jhu.edu...). We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. In quantum physics, the forces or interactions between matter particles are all supposed to be carried by particles of integer spin" 0, 1, or 2, which, as we see, give rise to forces between the matter particles. What happens is that a matter particle, such as an electron or a quark, emits a force carrying particle. The recoil from this emission changes the velocity of the matter particle. This collision changes the velocity of the second particle, just as if there had been a force between the two matter particles. It is an important property of the force carrying particles that they do not obey the exclusion principle. This means that there is no limit to the number that can be exchanged, and so they can give rise to a strong force. However, if the force carrying particles have a high mass, it will be difficult to produce and exchange them over large distances. So the force they carry will only have a short range. On the other hand, if the force-carrying particles have no mass of their own, the forces will be long range. For more information see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://hubblesite.org... https://www.princeton.edu... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://grandunificationtheory.org.... http://m.youtube.com... http://whystringtheory.com... |
21 | de92ac8b-2019-04-18T15:55:20Z-00007-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists This discussion is about Climate Change Anomalies from the years 1900 to 2200 (see comments section), and whether they are anthropogenic. Anomalies are deviations from "schedule" weather cycles, and can include both hot and cold extremes, making "global warming" only half of this discussion. So, right off the bat, temperature anomalies began rising just after the year 1900 [1]. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />As shown in the following chart [2], this corresponds closely with a recent rise in CO2 emissions. This chart shows that CO2 levels have always travelled in cycles, but broke their most recent scheduled downward cycle to reach their highest level in over 400,000 years. In a sense, one might say nature did half the work on CO2 and the human race took it from there. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />Correllation is obviously not causation, but the mechanics that link CO2 to temperature have been well documented. Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects: A Review [3]CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium. . http://climate.nasa.gov...; />Oceanic Greenhouse Effects: A ReviewThe oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. However, before the oceans can truly begin warming, the ice caps have to melt. . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...; />And as we can see here [4], though the ice caps have shown about a half-century lag behind the thinner, more responsive atmosphere, they are roughly 1 million square kilometers smaller than they ought to be, as of 2014. It appears that climate anomalies are closely associated with CO2 levels, that CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic and will continue to be so until the next 'natural' CO2 spike roughly one hundred thousand years from now (chart 1), and that the greenhouse mechanisms behind all this are straightforward and established. 1. . http://climate.nasa.gov...2. . http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. . http://climate.nasa.gov...4. . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... |
18 | 8865130d-2019-04-18T14:39:21Z-00005-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Abortion should remain a legal standing law. Women should be able to determine their own future. It is ultimately the woman"s decision whether or not she should bring a child into the world. This is important because only she knows whether or not she is capable of bringing a child into the world. I believe that the abortion law should remain standing. Pros: 1). Reproductive choice empowers women, allowing them to take control over their body. 2). Women who receive abortion are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. 3). Allow women to have an option to choose not to bring fetuses with abnormalities to full term. 4). Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, be on welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. 5). Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. 6). A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 7). Abortion reduces welfare costs to tax payers. |
4 | cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Here are a few of my arguments for corporal punishment. 1. Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. If children are clearly given the fact that if they misbehave, they will be given corporal punishment, then this will make them more aware of what will happen to them and will make them think twice about their actions. A lot of the time corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child and they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore misbehave. 2. Another argument for corporal punishment is that it is quick. Other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because the student can miss school, and waste hours on top of hours sitting in detention, while corporal punishment is quick and takes a second. So non corporal punishment can ultimately be a waste of time. 3. A study showed that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. In other words it deters misbehavior. If we have corporal punishment kids will not misbehave as much because of misbehavior. 4. Young children are not able to discern right and wrong to the decree that older age kids are. For example, if a young kid were to stick his finger in an electrical socket, then if you give them a smaller dose of pain, then it will teach them not to do life threatening things. Little kids don't understand being grounded. They don't understand their being punished. Rather with corporal punishment toddlers know that their experiencing pain and it teaches them not to do the wrong thing. 5. As corporal has decreased in public schools and home, you would expect to seem a decrease in misbehavior, but that hasn't been the case. This is why corporal punishment is better. It shows kids that they will be given physical pain if they misbehave. In conclusion, corporal punishment should be allowed. Sources used 1. procon.org 2. soapboxie |
27 | 90dc25ac-2019-04-18T12:51:05Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws Our rights to bear arms are written in the constitution. Whoever wants to challenge me go ahead and write your first argument. |
3 | 6edb0442-2019-04-18T15:32:49Z-00008-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Should Gay marriage be allowed Gay marriage should be allowed and we should marry who we love. As a bi, I want to stand up and say this. |
21 | 29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term "climate change" as- a significant change in the usual climatic conditions especially that thought to be caused by global warming. This 'climate change' can be caused by natural or human induced impacts. The global average temperature has risen by nearly a degree in the past 50 years. Scientists around the world have been recording temperature increases, raised ocean levels and melting of ice caps. All this is evidence that the earth is experiencing a "climate change". Many people believe that this change is primarily due to the fact that our CO2 emissions have created more greenhouse gases. They believe that there is a relationship between the rise in temperatures and the rise in CO2 emissions. Data shows an "association" between temperature levels and CO2 emissions but does not necessarily prove that increased CO2 levels are the most significant aspect of today"s climate change. For something complex like the weather system, many scientists are needed to unravel the story behind climate change. While most scientists believe climate change occurs, not all agree on the extent and relevance of human activity as an influence on climate change. While major international climate agencies all emphasise the critical role of CO2 emissions in climate change, others are not so sure. For example, some scientists have conducted research that suggests that temperatures were higher than they are today, during the Roman and Medieval periods. These ancient civilisations would not have emitted CO2 emissions as we do today, so why did their temperatures rise? Temperatures have risen and fallen for a long time. The National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) states that climate change over the longer term is mainly due to the amount of sun energy hitting the Earth. Slight changes in the Earth"s orbit and changes in sun ray intensity, can alter the temperatures here on Earth. Even so, most scientists still emphasise the role of CO2 emissions in unprecedented, rapid global warming. The frank fact is that climate change cannot be stopped. It is completely natural. |
6 | bc12e6a4-2019-04-18T17:08:40Z-00008-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Life is worth living I accept funwiththoughts challenge, and will endeavor to postpone my demise until after posting my fifth round. It my not be worth it to me personally, but I accept the pain it will cause me in the interest of the public good. |
46 | 2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00006-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net neutrality == Definitions ==Net neutrality: "the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org...Antitrust laws: "a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers ... restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade ... restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition ... [and] prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power." http://en.wikipedia.org... == Rebuttal == Pro claims that net neutrality is necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. But the reality is much different. ISPs could only do that if there were no competition. That means they'd have to collude with each other, or have a monopoly (and abuse that monopoly power). Both of those are illegal under current antitrust laws (Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act). So net neutrality isn't necessary to stop ISPs from slowing down the Internet. If an ISP did slow down the Internet while charging monopoly prices, another company would provide faster service at a competitive price, and consumers would buy their Internet from the company providing faster service at a competitive price. That's how a free market works. We don't neet net neutrality laws to regulate an area that's already regulated by antitrust laws.== Argument ==The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local company has a monopoly in Internet access and blocks subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate that sort of anticompetitive practice through other means (i.e. antitrust laws).The problem with requiring net neutrality is that net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive discrimination and anticompetitive discrimination. Under a net neutrality regime, networks can't favor traffic from a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. Or worse, networks can't restrict downright harmful traffic, such as viruses, worms, and spam. Instead, all Internet traffic must be treated equally. Antitrust laws, on the other hand, allow procompetitive discrimination while also prohibiting anticompetitive discrimination.(1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet.The Internet has always been shaped by intense competition and rampant growth. Entrepreneurs have had the latitude to experiment with new and different business models. And as a result, in the absence of heavy government regulation, and "due in large part to private investment and market-driven innovation, broadband in America has improved considerably in the last decade. More Americans are online at faster speeds than ever before." [1]Rigid net neutrality laws would change that. Instead of allowing the free market to guide investment dollars where needed, and allowing businesses to act based on the best use of scarce resources like bandwidth, the government would dictate many of these decisions, chilling competition, growth, and innovation.(2) Net neutrality doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices.Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [2]Unregulated markets give entrepreneurs the latitude to experiment as such, producing procompetitive outcomes: more options, lower prices, and better quality services. But a net neutrality requirement would categorically condemn all discriminatory practices, without distinguishing the good, procompetitive ones from the bad, anticompetitive ones.(3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition.Antitrust laws protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices -- monopolization, collusion, price-fixing, etc. Under these laws, courts ask whether there's been actual harm to consumers or competition before condemning a business practice. If there's been a showing of harm to consumers or competition, then the company harming the consumer or competition faces heavy fines and even prison. This approach is more nuanced, fact-based, and flexible, and it's better for the economy because it gives entrepreneurs latitude to experiment.Pro says that ISPs could slow down the Internet and force content providers to pay for so-called "fast lanes." But if that actually harms competition or consumers, it's already illegal under current antitrust laws. An FCC Commissioner, Robert McDowell, even notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [3] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime.Sources:[1] http://transition.fcc.gov...[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...[3] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010) |
42 | 7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00002-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury. |
40 | ed87bcca-2019-04-18T14:19:46Z-00007-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty Death Penalty is a major debate across the united states of america right now and i am aganist the death penalty. ROUND 1:Acceptance and opening statements and telling stance. Round 2:Arguments # 1 Round 3:Arguments # 2(ADD VIDEO WITH THIS ONE PLEASE)-SINCE YOU ARE PRO LOOK AT PRO DEATH PENALTY VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE OR GOOGLE. ROUND 4:CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND STATEMENTS. |
18 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | 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 |
2 | e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00004-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Of all context, There should be no regulations. If the audience wants to buy them; let them. If kids do it for the clout, Let them. The ones whom will suffer the consequences is the user. That's all. |
31 | 69f186d6-2019-04-18T16:47:51Z-00005-000 | Is obesity a disease? | The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity For clarification, the title is really asking: does the government have a responsibility attempt to combat obesity, and their citizens lack of exercise, through legislation, changing curriculum, advertising, etc. Or does the responsibility fall solely on the individual? |
28 | 436cc21d-2019-04-18T13:44:16Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | No to legalizing prostitution Prostitution should not be legalized and here is why: Prostitutes nowadays might think this is what they want, but sooner or later they will be finding themselves at a place, where they do not want to be. Some people, mostly girls, wants to give up on their EDUCATION to become a prostitute, if it gets legalized, which everybody knows is not what they should. They should stay in school, get an education and stay on a path they can use for something. Some of the prostitutes out there does not even WANT TO be a prostitute, they are just doing it to earn money because they cannot get any better job. Do they world really want that? Do the world want prostitution to be legalized if the prostitutes might not be able to live a normal life after? |
9 | 637bf47b-2019-04-18T15:09:25Z-00005-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniform should be banned Hello, this is my first debate. I wish good luck to my opponents.Commenters please advice me in the comments section and thank you!So let's get started.Point 1:School uniform can be a indication of the student's pride and loyalty of the school. By wearing school uniform, students will feel proud of their school. However, this only applies if the school is reputable as if the school is not reputable, the school uniform would indicate that the student is not a good student due to his school.Point 2: School uniforms help teachers and staff to identify students. This is especially useful during school trips. Imagine what would happen if school uniforms were banned, how would the teachers identify their students during mishaps and accidents? Besides, it is also easier for a teacher to do a head count of the students as most of the students would be wearing the same type of clothes. Compared to students wearing different colored clothes with different designs , students wearing the school uniform would be certainly more easily recognized.Point 3: Wearing a school uniform will change a student's mindset and attitude towards their study. Psychologist have proven that wearing the school uniform will cause a student to be more serious compared to wearing home clothes. Thus, wearing school uniform would enable a student to focus more easily during lesson.Point 4: School uniform can improve the image of a school. As the saying goes, ' The clothes makes the man' By wearing a smart standardized uniform, a student will look like a studious scholar, by wearing a shirt with a punk-like design, the student will look like a hooligan, while wearing a shirt with a cartoon design would make the student look childish and immature. The clothes of what we wear reflects who we are,even if some do not notice. For example, if we wear a tank top and yellow pants with pink polka dots to a job interview, you would be perceived as a foolish person with a can't be bothered attitude. Thus, if a group of students wears a class uniform, the school would be seen as organized and would of course make a better impression than a school with students wearing clothes of different designs.Point 5: School uniform can reduce the bullying of many students. Bullying has been a common issue in schools due to many factors. One of the factor is the clothing. Wearing inappropriate or abusive clothes can lead to a disruption in class, and also, in more serious cases, a fight. For example, if a student wore a shirt to school with the words 'Chinese Suck', the Chinese of the school would feel offended and will most probably find a way to have revenge. Some of them might even perhaps commit self harm or try to engage in a fight with the student wearing the repulsive shirt. Likewise, if outsiders see a student wearing an abusive shirt, and identify the student, it would bring a bad image to the school. Therefore, cases of bullying can be reduced if students wear the same uniform.Point 6: Due to poverty, the clothes of a poor pupil might be torn, worn or dirty. This may lead to the discrimination of other students. If all students wore the same uniform, less people would discriminate students due to their clothes as their first impression on others would be based more on the mindset , personality and attitude of the person rather than his clothes.In conclusion, the uniform may have disadvantages, however, the benefits of a uniform outweighs the negative effects of a uniform, therefore, the uniform should not be banned. |
31 | 2e9293e6-2019-04-18T18:50:29Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Freeman's debate tournament round 2: There is no right or wrong answer in any political debate. *In my last round i had 2 videos. The first one is my case, the NC, and the second one is my rebuttal against the AC* So watch both if you didnt http://www.youtube.com... ==NC== Extensional Drops --Observations-- 1. Ob. 1 - Minimum burden from term "any" 2. Ob. 2 - No locational contextualization 3. Ob. 3 - Rightness vs wrongness --Contentions-- C1: Consequentialism 1. Thought experiment analysis 2. Harries Evidence 3. Dworkin Evidence C3: Fiscal Responsibility 1. Summers Evidence 2. Foster Evidence *My opponent dropped/conceded all of these points in his last speech, dont let him bring them up in his last* ==AC== Extensional Drops C1: Effectiveness 1. Unknown results dont negate the future result C2: Long Disputes 1. Global Warming Analysis 2. Economic Debate Analysis |
3 | 5461331e-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Resolved: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Good debate, Lars. Hope to do a good one on Insider Trading in a few days. Debate ends at 45:30. Feel free to skip through the prep time periods. Pro/Affirmative: Wallstreetatheist (blue shirt and Americanish)Con/Negative: larztheloser (black sweatshirt and New Zealandish--think Flight of the Conchords)http://www.youtube.com...; |
9 | 573179dd-2019-04-18T16:24:35Z-00005-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized, for it is my own work being used on a different account I created. My opponent broke my rule that first round is for acceptance, and therefore loses conduct points. My Arguments 1. Uniforms may increase a student's self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. [1] Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion". [2] By implementing uniforms confidence is boosted and negative peer pressure is eliminated. Over 75% of schools that implemented school uniforms noticed a drop in peer pressure. [3] 2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the classroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class. 3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side". [4] This togetherness helps to eliminate division among students at the school and reduces bullying; giving a sense of community is beneficial to the mental well being of a student. [5] 4. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus. This helps to make students feel safer at school. School uniforms may also eliminate gang and clique symbols bringing about a feeling of safety and togetherness. Safety is very important when increasing the amount of students who enroll in a school. 5. Bullies like to pick on kids who are lesser than them, and therefore tend to pick on kids who do not wear quality or popular clothes. [6]By implementing school uniforms this problem is solved. School uniforms encourage discipline through neatness, order, and equality among students. [6] 6. School uniforms encourage creative forms of self expression. Since students lose the ability to express themselves in certain ways through the clothes they were, they will be more likely to express themselves through things such as their personality, academic performance, clubs, and sports. It pushes students to put themselves out there. 7. School uniforms reduce violence and student behavioral problems. [7] Long Beach, California District School held a study comparing violence and behavioral problem rates among students before and after uniforms were implemented. In the five years following the implementation of school uniforms there was an 86% drop in violent assaults. Vandalism cases dropped from 1409 to 106. [8] The U.S. Department of Education also found that school crime decreased 36%, sexual offenses decreased 74%, and fights between students dropped 51% after school uniforms were implemented.[13] Almost 80% schools that implemented school uniforms noticed an improvement in student discipline. [9] Schools that implemented school uniforms also showed to have a higher graduation rate and attendance rate than schools without school uniforms. [11] [12] School uniforms have helped improve schools, as emphasized by one study that finds that "various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, eases of going to school, confidence and self-esteem. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assist. "[10] Contentions "Uniforms ultimately cost more" The basic uniform, khakis and an oxford, can be produced cheaply. In fact, the basic uniforms are actually cheaper than lots of clothes found in the store. If possessing a uniform becomes a problem, many organizations help with getting them to children. "Uniforms do not teach children how to deal with people who are different then themselves" It does however, eliminate difference through clothing, thus bringing kids on to an equal level. "Cliques will still form." It doesn't matter what uniforms can't do, rather it is important to focus on the plethora of things uniforms accomplish. In the same, you can't say "glasses don't raise grades," because that focuses on what glasses can't do, ignoring all the things glasses can do. "It is impossible to prevent all outside intrusion" It doesn't matter whether uniforms can stop all outside intrusion if uniforms as a whole help to prevent intruders from coming on campus. "Children will still ask for designer labels for outside of school clothing." This is overall irrelevant to the debate. "If you need uniforms to distinguish between public and catholic/private schools it's time to re-evaluate where your child is going" Implementing uniforms isn't about distinguishing from other schools, rather it is about the benefits uniforms directly provide to the school implementing them. "Uniforms teach children that in order to get along everyone must conform to the same standards. " Conformity helps in keeping things under control, and is something that will be seen in everyday society even after the student is out of school, therefore this isn't actually a bad thing. "like i said uniform is strict and conduct a boring environment that unsuitable" Uniforms do not create a boring environment, rather they promote an orderly, neat, and professional environment which is an environment suitable for learning in. [1] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... [2] http://www.eduguide.org... [3] https://www.dickies.com... [4]http://www.greatschools.org... [5]http://www.frenchtoast.com... [6] http://www.parenting.org... [7]http://www.calvaryschoolkc.com... [8] http://www.davidsonacademy.com... [9] http://www.buzzle.com... [10] http://www.unr.edu... [11] http://www.19actionnews.com... [12] http://www.uh.edu... [13] http://www.psmag.com... |
3 | b7a04059-2019-04-18T18:01:45Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Policy Debate - Transportation Infrastructure ON CASE (Attacking the Aff"s Round 1) Contention 1: Inherency a. My opponent said that ports are lacking security now. My answer is that Risks are decreasing, alternative transportation methods solve, catastrophic impacts are empirically denied Edward E. Leamer and Christopher Thornberg, professor of statistics at UCLA and senior economist with the UCLA Anderson Forecast, 2006 (UCLA Anderson Forecast, Protecting the Nation"s Seaports: Balancing Security and Costs, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_606jhr.pdf) Although the United States is considerably more trade-dependent today than in earlier periods, this potential vulnerability is offset by a number of factors.One is the shift from ship to aircraft for delivery of many high-value, time-sensitive goods, particularly on the export side. Second, countermeasures to a terrorist strike, such as increased inspections of containers, may be more onerous for imports coming from uncertain ports than for exports packaged in the United States. And although a widespread labor action would stop most maritime trade completely, a terrorist strike would only slow trade rather than stop it. When added together, these factors mean that the disruption to the flow of goods as a result of a current terrorist attack could be roughly similar in size to the effect of a major port strike in the 1960s. Therefore, we feel that these historic labor actions correspond closely enough to the kind of port disruption that a terrorist attack might bring to tell us a lot about the probable effect on the national economy of a terrorist attack on the ports. We will show how these labor actions are visible in the import data and export data of the period. In all cases, there was a small increase in import volume before these actions, a drop in volume during the action, and a large surge in import volume after the dispute was settled. Because of the size of that postdisruption volume surge, the overall loss of trade during a labor action was very small and in some cases nonexistent b.My opponent claims that ships can be used for smuggling; my answer is that his plan, which calls for RFID tech, doesn"t actually solve for the given harm. Jon D. Haveman and Howard J. Shatz, Public Policy Institute of California, 2006 (Protecting the Nation"s Seaports: Balancing Security and Costs, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_606jhr.pdf) There is no way to completely inspect all of the millions of containers entering the United States. They are about as large as a full- size moving van and are often tightly packed. Inspecting each thoroughly would bring commerce to a halt, exactly the kind of reaction that terrorists hope to generate. Contention II: Solvency a.Explosives can be divided, making detection impossible Lt. Morgan James et al, Naval Postgraduate School, 2007 (Port Security Strategy 2012, edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/TR/2007/NPS-97-07-003.pdf) The first scenario considers an individual or group with the purpose to cause maximum destruction to the port facility and the in-port ship. One way to achieve this goal is to break up the explosive weapons into various parts carried by different shipments into the port. The insider would coordinate the different shipment of weapons by selecting a shipment that is less likely to be marked for inspection. It is difficult to detect any possible existence of weapons since most components can be mixed with other legitimate items such as electronics, machinery and raw manufacturing materials. Alternatively, the random check conducted can also be exploited. Assembly of the weapons would be done by the insider(s) disguised as workers of the port (e.g. machinery operators, dock workers etc). Detonation of explosives would be coordinated in conjunction with the docking of a ship. The explosives could be installed near the bay and cargo landing areas (near to the fuel tanks of the ship). The attack potentially could generate enough fuel explosives to cause substantial destruction to the port b. Detection doesn"t solve for direct attacks with ships Lt. Morgan James et al, Naval Postgraduate School, 2007 (Port Security Strategy 2012, edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/TR/2007/NPS-97-07-003.pdf) The first scenario considered small boat attacks on ports. Small boats loaded with explosives can penetrate the waterside of the port and detonate in the port vicinity. This action would cause damage to the ports" systems and equipment and disrupt the normal operations of the port. From the military point of view, a small boat attack would elevate the force protection level of the ship. It would also create psychological effects within the U.S. populace and generate retaliatory outcries. The USS COLE (DDG 67) attack in Yemen in October 2000 and French tanker Limburg"s attack in October 2002 demonstrated the potential major threat from the explosive-laden boats. Advantage 1 : Terrorism Al Qaeda no longer capable of large scale attacks Brian Michael Jenkins, senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation, 2011 (The Long Shadow of 9/11: America"s Response to Terrorism, Ed. Bruce Michael Jenkins and Paul Hodges, p. 4) There is consensus in this volume that the United States has accomplished a great deal in the past ten years. Al Qaeda"s capacity for centrally directed, large-scale terrorist operations has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated entirely. The risk of nuclear terrorism is low " it is too expensive for terrorist organizationsJohn Mueller, department of political science at Ohio State University, 2008 (1/1/2008, The Atomic Terrorist, p. http://polisci.osu.edu...) Assessing the financial costs. The discussion so far has neglected to consider the financial costs of the extended operation in all its culminating, or cascading, entirely, but these could easily become monumental. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up, and people to pay--or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to The Cause, but the vast conspiracy requires in addition the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible. Alarmists Zimmerman and Lewis (2006) suggest the entire caper could be pulled off for $10 million. The conspirators would be lucky to buy off three people with such a paltry sum. Moreover, the terrorists would be required to expose their ultimate goals to at least some of the corrupted, and at that point (if not earlier) they would become potential extortion victims. They could not afford to abandon unreliable people who know their goals (though they could attempt to kill them), and such people would now enjoy essentially monopoly powers ever to escalate their price. The cost of the operation in bribes alone could easily become ten times the sum suggested by Zimmerman and Lewis. And even at that, there would be, of course, a considerable riskthat those so purchased would, at an exquisitely opportune moment of their choosing, decide to take the money and run--perhaps to the authorities representing desperate governments with essentially bottomless bankrolls and an overwhelming incentive. No nuclear terror " terrorists cant acquire, build, or deliver a bomb Steve Chapman, reporter and editorial writer for Chicago Tribune, 2012 (RealClearPolitics, "The Implausibility of Nuclear Terrorism", http://reason.com...) But remember: After Sept. 11, 2001, we all thought more attacks were a certainty. Yet al-Qaida and its ideological kin have proved unable to mount a second strike. Given their inability to do something simple -- say, shoot up a shopping mall or set off a truck bomb -- it's reasonable to ask if they have a chance at something much more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a recent presentation at the University of Chicago, "the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be vanishingly small." The events required to make that happen comprise a multitude of Herculean tasks. First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia's inventory of decommissioned warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing. Besides, those devices are probably no longer a danger, since weapons that are not scrupulously maintained (as those have not been) quickly become what one expert calls "radioactive scrap metal." If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a bomb to an ally -- for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. The terrorists, notes Mueller, would then have to spirit it "hundreds of miles out of the country over unfamiliar terrain, and probably while being pursued by security forces." Then comes the task of building a bomb. It's not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment -- plus people with specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. And if al-Qaida could make a prototype, another obstacle would emerge: There is no guarantee it would work, and there is no way to test it. Assuming the jihadists vault over those Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in contraband all the time -- but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion. This, like every other step in the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what's going on, multiplying the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up. OFF CASE (My own case) T - Topicality A. The Interpretation a. Investment - the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. The word implies the expectation of profit or return. b. Infrastructure - the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization. c. Transportation Infrastructure is the underlying structure that allows for the movement of goods and people. Trimbath 9 (Dr. Susanne, Senior Research Economist in Capital Market Studies at Milken Institute, Senior Advisor " United States Chamber of Commerce, and Professor of Economics and Accounting " Bellvue University, "Transportation Infrastructure: Paving the Way", http://www.uschamber.com... e/files/2009TPI_Update_Economics_White_Paper_110712.pdf) The strategy applied by the US Chamber of Commerce for the infrastructure performance index project presents a model for developing the way forward. A stakeholder-centric approach allows you to measure the right things, communicate to the people in a language they understand and get to ACTION faster. The process, detailed in the Technical Report last summer (US Chamber 2010), is basically this: 1. Clearly define "transportation infrastructure" as the underlying structures that support the delivery of inputs to places of production, goods and services to customers, and customers to marketplaces. The structures are: - Transit - Highways - Airports - Railways - Waterways (Ports) - Intermodal Links B. Violation a. Port Security isn"t actually transportation infrastructure Jon D. Haveman and Howard J. Shatz, Public Policy Institute of California, 2006 (Protecting the Nation"s Seaports: Balancing Security and Costs, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_606jhr.pdf) There is no way to completely inspect all of the millions of containers entering the United States. They are about as large as a full- size moving van and are often tightly packed. Inspecting each thoroughly would bring commerce to a halt, exactly the kind of reaction that terrorists hope to generate. Given the difficulties of complete inspection, defense needs to be layered, with checks at multiple stages on a container"s journey. Even if a check at one stage has a low probability of uncovering a problem, multiple checks throughout the supply chain raise that probability a great deal. Such a layered defense can be divided into five areas: (1) intelligence"gaining information about which containers might be risky, (2) information about contents"having shippers notify authorities about the goods they are shipping, (3) procedural uniformity"creating standard procedures regarding packing and moving goods so that anomalies will be seen more easily, (4) limiting access"enforcing greater control over who may come near containers and ports, and (5) technology"the development of new inspection and tracking technologies. b. Not all sorts of spending equates to investment, only capital expenditure is topical and requires new projects Becker "8 (Werner, Deutsche Bank Research, et al., "Improving the Quality of Public Finances " The Road Ahead", 2-5, http://www.dbresearch.com...) With regard to the effects of public spending on growth, a distinction is traditionally made between current government consumption expenditure (on, say, the compensation of government employees) and capital expenditure geared to the future (on infrastructural projects such as transport, utility supply and communications systems). Government consumption spending is frequently generalised as unproductive, whereas public capital expenditure is regularly labelled as growth-enhancing investment in the future. When assessing the growth effects of public spending, however, this simplistic approach needs reexamining. There are some kinds of public spending that, while reported as capital expenditure, do not count as productive investment in the economic sense. Empirical surveys show that substantial growth effects can normally be expected only from infrastructure investment. But over the past 25 years this has accounted for a mere quarter to a third of total government investment.13 Ultimately, the simple equation "more public investment equals more growth" has been undermined in Germany by the very broad interpretation of the debt rule in Article 115 of the Basic Law.14 Although the rule stipulates that net new borrowing by the Federal government must not exceed public investment expenditure, in many years the government has departed from this principle " most recently in each of the years from 2002 to 2006 ", taking as its justification the disturbance in macroeconomic equilibrium. Public spending and public debt rose, but in most cases growth remained anaemic. A problem here is the relatively broad definition of public investment. c.Plan is monitoring transportation infrastructure, not infrastructure itself. USDOT RITA 2012 (US Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, March 28 EM05-Transportation Infrastructure Protection http://www.iteris.com...) Thisservice package includes the monitoring of transportation infrastructure (e.g., bridges, tunnels and management centers) for potential threats using sensors and surveillance equipment and barrier and safeguard systems to control access, preclude an incident, and mitigate the impact of an incident if it occurs. Threats can result from acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes), terrorist attacks or other incidents causing damage to the infrastructure (e.g., stray barge hitting a bridge support). Infrastructure may be monitored with acoustic, environmental threat (such as nuclear, biological, chemical, and explosives), infrastructure condition and integrity, motion and object sensors and video and audio surveillance equipment. Data from such sensors and surveillance equipment may be processed in the field or sent to a center for processing. The data enables operators at the center to detect and verify threats. When a threat is detected, agencies are notified. Detected threats or advisories received from other agencies result in an increased level of system preparedness. In response to threats, barrier and safeguard systems may be activated by Traffic Management Subsystems to deter an incident, control access to an area or mitigate the impact of an incident. Barrier systems include gates, barriers and other automated and remotely controlled systems that manage entry to transportation infrastructure. Safeguard systems include blast shields, exhaust systems and other automated and remotely controlled systems that mitigate impact of an incident. C. Standards a. My definitions were given in the first round, and the rules demand that they be in place for this debate. The aff, by accepting the debate, has acknowledged the definitions and their place in this debate. b. Fairness - Allowing the aff to run any plan including security measures would create an unbearable burden on the neg, because the topic would no longer be limited. Such a debate would eliminate clash and take away from the educational value it has. My definitions limit such a scenario. D. Voters a. Fairness - It isn"t fair for the aff to be able to run any case they wish or debate a non-topical case. b. Education - The educational factor of this debate is lowered if the case is allowed through. By voting against them, you warn them of future consequences. c. Jurisdiction - Judge isn"t allowed to vote on cases that are outside the parameters of the debate. They can only vote for aff cases that actually affirm the resolution. |
21 | c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Firstly. I have not quantified anything in the heading of the debate. I've said 'main cause'. Not 'more than fifty percent' or somethinglike that. Main means a major portion. Since when did 'substantially' get used for a small portion? And it is also not my possible (to my knowledge) to quantify the impact of natural causes on climate change as it is unpredictable and can change any time. Con has also left out my point that human activities can alter the natural conditions of the earth, therefore any change in temperature due to natural causes could have a human factor behind it. As explained in the following. http://co2now.org... Secondly, I never said natural causes play an insignificant role. I said they play an important role but not as important as human causes. In con's reference chart, the temperature has been constantly oscillating between hot and cold, but if you check recent years there have been almost two constant hot periods and the cold period is almost invisible ( in the graph I mean) meaning it is very short. And then in the graph itself it clear that the hot periods have been on the rise since the Age of Induatrialization. And after 2015, the cold period is based on assumptions and predictions, and as I have already made clear that nature cannot always be predicted. Thirdly Global Warming is a reality. Just because there have hotter periods before, doesn't mean it is not happening. The following site also explains that the global warming hiatus in recent times is not true. And that climate only causes short term changes in the climate of the earth, but human activity causes long term changes. http://www.bbc.com... Fourthly scientists will not quanitfy and agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, as it is their community that are primary responsible (in humans). But I will not defame them as some ARE trying their best to prove it. Fifthly , again I refer to the chart provided by Con, the hot periods have gradually developed over a period of time, but in recent years its almost at a right angle. Which means there have been sharp and quick increase in the heat all over the globe. |
7 | b952f294-2019-04-18T14:13:42Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics. Keep in mind that this is not a debate of whether it is illegal for prisoners to vote, but of whether they "should" be allowed this right. Therefore, referencing a policy/law such as the Supreme court decision of 2000 for the disenfranchisement of voting rights is likely to be deemed as irrelevant in the context of this debate, so debate with caution. Opening Arguments:Felony disenfranchisement: excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence (Wikipedia). Also this is a general issue, but I will be referring to the US frequently, since US polices condone felony disenfranchisement for the most part. Felony disenfranchisement varies in degree in some circumstances sometimes based on the type/degree of the offence or what state they were located in when serving their sentencing. Prisons are generally seen as a punishment for some convictions while for other convictions, they are seen as a means for rehabilitation. This perspective usually varies depending on the viewpoints of the outside parties. Arguably, punishment is the subjective perspective while rehabilitation is the objective perspective. The same case can be likened to voting disenfranchisement. Many prisoners (especially those with minor offenses), contrary to popular belief, strive to better themselves and rejoin society. Felony disenfranchisement is often an overly excessive punishment for certain prisoners. Prisoners already have their liberty take away, including their rights to be with their family and friends or occupy a job whilst in prison. It is certainly justified for them to serve a court's sentencing, but why should their right to vote be taken away as well? Especially considering that there are prisoners serving relatively short-term sentences and who had committed minor offenses. Prisoners would be less likely to be involved in criminal activities if encouraged to participate in the politics as part of their rehabilitation. -Enfranchisement not only bestows self-esteem and a sense of purpose in society, but encourages research and participation with contemporary political issues. "To deny this right is to force the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family" (Parris). Felony disenfranchisement conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Granting them the right to vote would likely be consistent with the American tradition of making our democracy more and more inclusive. Arguably there would be reduced re-offending rates and perhaps a society with fewer criminals as a long term effect. Felony disenfranchisement distorts the total voter turnout. -In 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together prevented "an estimated 5.85 million felons" from voting, "up from 1.2 million in 1976" (Wikipedia). "This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. " The estimated population for Florida in 2010 was"18,804,623" (US census) and it had the highest disenfranchised voters for any state, with "1.5 million" disenfranchised from voting. That is roughly a calculated 12.5% of the total population that was not represented in Florida. It would virtually be an inaccurate representation in our society, a largely democratic society that prides itself for representing the general populace rather than a select few. The equal protection clause can also come into play if it is recognized in the courts that prisoners who are colored are not represented and are racially discriminated against in terms of voting. Prisoners are not treated as "civically dead" when it benefits the government. - Prisoners remain liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. This is virtually taxation without representation. Many convicts have difficulty finding employment when put on parole after serving a sentence, and so this would be an unfair and excessive punishment when taking that into account. The support of felony disenfranchisement is largely based on subjective values of furthering justice against those convicted, rather than objective values concerning what would really function well in terms of rehabilitation and voter representation. Sources Utilized:-. http://quickfacts.census.gov...-https://en.wikipedia.org...-http://archive.fairvote.org...-http://insidetime.org... |
26 | 9c26bc68-2019-04-18T16:13:50Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Is Online Education More Effective Then Traditional Education I get what your trying to say but not all of it is right. We don't have the option to stay at home and use online edu. And the part where you said that kids can get distracted online. That's not true. Most schools have internet that blocks most websites like my school and the same thing goes for tests. And e-books are a sorce of education. For example you can get a sample copy of a book online before you buy it, also there is an unlimited amount of thoses books say you were to go to the library, the book u want might already be rented. Online storage is the better option because it just has more of it. Handwriting can be avoided with a divice called the printer. With that you can get all of the online information on paper. Also online you can share work faster then handing it in. Traditional Education can't provide the opitions that the internet does. With google drive you can add documents presentations drawings and more. It is very useful for people to use and SO MUCH FASTER. From what I herd the online world is much better and eaiser to use. :D |
35 | 5b6b2f9-2019-04-18T15:28:19Z-00000-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violent Video Games Although I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called "Do Video Games Make Teens Violent" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm. |
33 | 2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00002-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan I cannot argue further for this round as you have made no attempt to extend my arguments. |
7 | 405a3347-2019-04-18T18:49:43Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Children should be allowed to vote. I accept the terms as my contender has laid them out and gladly accept the challenge. I will be arguing on the Pro/for side of the debate. I will argue that age restrictions have no place in our voting system. I will use resources including only scholarly articles and textbooks, which I will access through Indiana University Libraries. Not only will I conclude that humans under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, but I will argue that it may be beneficial to their cognitive/social growth. Let the fun begin :) |
4 | 6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment in schools I will bring up my own points and rebut some of my opponent's points. I will elaborate on my rebuttals in future rounds, as I ran out of room. I would like the readers to notice that my opponent is often the logical fallacy called "Appeal to Emotion". I will expand on this accusation later in the debate. Before I begin my debate, I would like to say that I am not arguing for an extreme. I will be arguing for a moderate amount of corporal punishment. My 5 contentions will be:1. Corporal punishment serves as a deterrent2. Corporal punishment saves the child's future3. Corporal punishment is not abuse4. Corporal punishment increases productivity5. The Bible supports corporal punishmentBefore anybody starts bashing me on my biblical argument, I would like to point out that my opponent has not set any criteria for available arguments. Therefore, I will use whatever I want. The Bible is provided as more of a "bonus" contention. C1:Corporal punishment serves as a deterrentCorporal punishment by itself, is not different that another type of punishment. It is clear to everybody that punishment serves as a deterrent. If my opponent's tries to negate this, then he will have a very hard time. Just the idea alone makes sense. If I add a punishment onto an action, the person will be less likely to commit the action again. This applies to corporal punishment. If a teacher slaps person X for verbal abuse, then he will most likely not do it again for fear of being slapped. These practices successfully transition into a child's later life. .. . leading me to my next point C2: Corporal punishment saves the child's future Corporal punishment, in moderation, early in a child's life helps save their future. Dr. Walter E. Williams, a famous economist says (2):"Today, it's not uncommon for young criminals to be arrested, counseled and released to the custody of a parent 20 or 30 times before they spend one night in jail. Such a person is a very good candidate for later serving a long prison sentence or, worse, facing the death penalty. If you interviewed such a person and asked: "Thinking back to when you started your life of crime, would you have preferred a punishment, such as caning, that might have set you straight or be where you are today? " I'd bet my retirement money that he'd say he wished someone had caned some sense into him. That being the case, which is more cruel: caning or allowing such a person to become a criminal? " "Experts theorize that corporal punishment helps create more disciplined and hard-working students and civilians that develop to be more prudent financially. When a nation develops its students into responsible citizens, the entire nation ultimately benefits through increased productivity and efficiency in the economy. Students learn through corporal punishment that there are greater objectives and goals beyond themselves. They ultimately learn to contribute to the economy in a positive way. "(5)I know that we are talking about corporal punishment in schools, but this directly relates back to it. "Whipping" out any bad practices early in a child's life is acceptable as it saves them from committing the same mistake in a unforgiving and cruel adult world. Many children that would be corporally punished in schools are the "back-talkers", the interrupters, and verbal abusers. It is better to prevent these practices in childhood. In the adult world, verbal abuse and "back-talking" to your superiors is not tolerated. These practices can cause a child to lose their job, and even worse, their future. This discouragement of bad habits sets children up to succeed. Children are more impressionable than adults. Therefore, these effects will be amplified in them. (3)C3: Corporal Punishment is not abuseMy opponent's main arguments are centered around abuse and corporal punishment. Abuse is: "Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose" (3) To prove that a corporal punishment is not abuse, I must show that there is at least one positive effect of corporal punishment. I have shown that corporal punishment saves a child's life in the future (and I will show how it increases productivity). Therefore, corporal punishment is not abuse. The logic goes as follows:1. Abuse consists of using something for a bad purpose of effect2. Corporal punishment helps children later in their life3. Therefore, corporal punishment is not abuse. This negates many of my opponent's points about abuse. C4: Corporal punishment increases productivityCorporal punishment increases productivity. According to Surinder Kahai: "Contingent punishment behaviors also have been found to be beneficial by promoting group drive and productivity"(6)"Contingent reward behavior has been found to promote group drive, cohesiveness, and productivity. Contingent punishment behaviors also have been found to be beneficial by promoting group drive and productivity " (6)This debate is not whether contingent punishment or contingent rewards are more efficient, simply about whether contingent punishment increases productivity. However, corporal punishment also serves as a incentive. Not everybody is going to get corporally punished. Corporal punishment also serves as a stimulant for those who don't misbehave. By not getting punished, they think that they are doing the correct thing. Therefore, they will keep doing it. This promotes good behaviour in those who already have it, and reduces bad behavior in those who misbehave. C5: The Bible promotes corporal punishmentThis serves as a "bonus" contention. According to the Bible:Proverbs 23:14. The authorship is traditionally attributed to King Solomon: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. ""He who spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who loveth him is chasteneth him betimes. " (King Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs [13:24]. "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. " (Proverbs 22:15)"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod. And deliver his soul from hell. " (Proverbs 23:13)RebuttalTrust IssuesI fail to see how trust issues with teachers relate to students. A teacher is not there to provide a source of comfort, merely a source for teaching and learning. A school has guidance counselors which the students can go to if they have issues, not the teachers. I assume that we are not talking about corporal punishment in the very low grades. Since about Grade 3/4 and up, student/teacher relationships are merely focused on teaching. In Junior High School, High School and University, there is virtually no student/teacher relationship. Corporal punishment would not damage any trust issues with teachers as there aren't any. If the student has problems, there is always a guidance counselor. Family/Peer IssuesI would like to point out that my opponent is using "Appeal to Emotion" in this subtopic as he is listing random sad stories of children getting abused. My opponent has also listed statistics (which I doubt are correct, but I will accept them for this point) that are completely irrelevant to this topic. I have shown how Corporal Punishment is not abuse, therefore negating many of my opponent's points. ConclusionI am running out of room so I will quickly wrap this up. I have shown how corporal punishment serves as a deterrent to future misbehaving, saves the child's future, is not abuse, increases productivity, and the Bible promotes it. Vote PROGood luck to CON(2). http://findarticles.com...(3)http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi...(4)http://goo.gl...(5)http://www.ehow.com...(6)http://www.leadingvirtually.com... |
3 | e98fe508-2019-04-18T14:13:32Z-00005-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Should immigrants in the United States illegally who are parents of us minors be deported Border Terror DA Links Border Border surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorism Wilson 2/26 (Reid Wilson, covers national politics and Congress for The Washington Post and author of Read In, The Post"s morning tip sheet on politics. He's a former editor in chief of The Hotline, the premier tip sheet on campaigns and elections and a graduate of The George Washington University, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border", February 26 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com...) A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. [Drone strike kills senior al-Shabab official in Somalia] Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Border surveillance is k2 preventing terrorism Smarick et al. 12 (Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. 11/12 "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants" START, http://www.start.umd.edu... CCC) An essential step in this project was determining the frequency and dynamics of border crossings by individuals who conducted or who wanted to conduct terrorism-related activities in the United States. Towards that goal, the project built upon the existing holdings of the American Terrorism Study (ATS) in this effort. The ATS, housed at the University of Arkansas, catalogs and systematically codes information on more than 300 Federal court cases involving Federal terrorist charges since 1980 and, following a review of other possible resources, proved to be the most useful starting point for compiling open-source, quantitative data on terrorist border crossings. Since 1989, the American Terrorism Study (ATS) has received lists of court cases and associated indictees that resulted from an official FBI terrorism investigation spanning 1980 through 2004. Housed at the University of Arkansas" Terrorism Research Center in Fulbright College (TRC), the ATS now includes almost 400 cases from the FBI lists. Of these, approximately 75% of cases have complete court documentation, and almost all of those collected have been coded into the ATS database, while the ATS team continues to track new cases by collecting, reviewing, and coding new and additional court documentation. The ATS includes terrorism incidents and attacks, thwarted or planned terrorism incidents sometimes referred to as preventions, material support cases for terrorism, general terrorism conspiracies, and in some cases, immigration fraud; the common denominator among all ATS events is that the FBI investigated these events as terrorism-related incidents. During preliminary research for this project, court records from 378 terrorism cases found in the ATS dataset were reviewed for information on potential border crossing events related to terrorism cases. The documents for each court case were manually reviewed by researchers to determine whether the collected records reported that one of the defendants or accomplices in a case crossed a U.S. border at some point. Thirty-eight percent of the reviewed cases"145 cases"from 1980 through 2004 were found to either have: " direct mention of a border crossing in the court documents, or " a link to a terrorism incident that involved a known border crossing, either before or after an incident. After compiling this list of court cases for inclusion, each identified court case was then linked to a criminal incident involving terrorism charges. Initial reviews revealed a connection to a border-crossing event in a total of 58 successful terrorist attacks, 51 prevented or thwarted attacks, 26 material support cases, 33 immigration fraud incidents, and 4 general terrorism conspiracies. Additional reviews of relevant information on indictees and their activities resulted in a reduction in the number of successful terrorist attacks associated with these individuals to a total of 43. Appendix 2 provides more details on the data collection process and how a reliable collection methodology was established to create the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing Dataset (USTBC), using the ATS as a starting point. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 12 Systematic evaluation by the research team revealed that the American Terrorism Study is a reliable and useful resource for identifying individuals associated with terrorist attacks or terrorist criminal cases (such as conspiracies) and for determining which of these individuals crossed U.S. borders in advance of or in the wake of their terrorism-related behavior. This is largely because the ATS is based on court documents, which among sources of data on terrorism are the most likely to reference relevant border crossing activity. The Global Terrorism Database, which is based primarily on media sources, can serve a supporting role in this research, but the ATS is the primary source allowing for construction of a new, relational database on U.S. Terrorist Border Crossings (USTBCs). That being said, it is important to recognize that the ATS is not a perfect data source. As noted above, its contents are limited to individuals and information related to court cases in which one or more defendant was charged with Federal terrorism charges. As such, the contents of ATS clearly represent a subset of all terrorists or attempted terrorists in the United States, as it systematically omits those who: " were never arrested or faced any charges, " were charged with offenses not directly related to terrorism, " were charged at the non-Federal level, or " were engaged in dangerous activity that does not meet the FBI"s definition of a terrorism case. Throughout this project, the research team was careful to respect the limitations of this data collection and to draw conclusions that recognize that the border crossing events included in this project likely represent a non-representative subset of all border crossing attempts by terrorists or intended terrorists. Despite these limitations, though, the data that was built upon the baseline of ATS provides important insights into the nexus between border crossings and terrorism. The U.S. Terrorism Border Crossing Dataset The final versions of the codebooks used to develop the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing (USTBC) data collection are presented in Appendix 3. Based upon knowledge gained from pilot efforts (as discussed above and in Appendix 2), the project resulted in two codebooks"one focused on dynamics of a bordercrossing event involving someone associated with a Federal terrorism court case, and another focused on the characteristics of the individuals associated with Federal charges who were involved in the bordercrossing event. Data collection for the USTBC lasted for approximately one year and was primarily conducted by research assistants at the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.3 The resultant data that comprise the USTBC are available in Appendix 4. Table 4 provides a snapshot summary of these data, which include detailed information on the location of an attempted crossing, the timing of a crossing relative to attempted or actual terrorist activity, the origin or destination of an attempted crossing, and more. The data also include specific information on border crossers, including their citizenship status, their criminal history, and key demographics (including level of education, marital status, etc.) Appendix 5 provides descriptive statistics from the border-crossing and border-crosser data. 3 Special thanks to Kim Murray and Summer Jackson of the Terrorism Research Center for their efforts in combing through the courtcase material and assembling these data for the USTBC. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 13 Border Crossings Identified in USTBC Attempts to Enter the United States Of the 221 border crossings identified in this project as involving individuals who were indicted by the U.S. government in terrorism-related cases, the majority (129 crossings) involved an individual attempting to enter the United States, while the remainder (92 crossings) involved an individual attempting to exit the United States. Eighty-seven percent of the attempted border crossings were successful, rather than being thwarted by law enforcement or foiled by some other events or developments. Additional discussion on the nature of successful crossings versus those who were apprehended at the border is presented below. Among those attempts to enter the United States, the most frequent origin for these crossing efforts was Canada.4 But, as Figure 2 illustrates, such attempted entries originated from all corners of the world. US Border Patrol proves that surveillance is key to anti-terror efforts Stamey 14 (Barcley; DOMESTIC AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY: SHOULD AMERICANS FEAR THE EYE IN THE SKY; March 2014) The leading national agency currently using drones to combat a wide range of domestic threats is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. With its fleet of seven MQ-1 Predators and three MQ-1 Guardians"Predators modified for marine surveillance"CBP 26 is at the forefront of large-scale drone operations. With an annual budget exceeding $11 billion, CBP is well equipped for protecting our national security while combating potential terrorist threats.55 But how efficiently are those funds being used, and what is meant by effectiveness? According to Merriam-Webster, effectiveness is "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect or result."56 Ultimately, that desired result is safe international borders. Accomplishing this result involves the apprehension of illegal immigrants, interdiction of illicit drugs, and prevention of terrorist infiltration, which CBP does quite well, but with respect to UAS, effectiveness must be viewed on a much broader scale. This section takes into account the size of CBP, its operational budget, and couples it with published results. According to CBP, the primary mission of drone use is "anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal cross-border activity."57 CBP uses its Predators and Reapers to accomplish this goal through human detection and tracking, surface asset coordination, and threat detection through IR sensors in multiple scenarios. Previously mentioned sensor suites allow the Predator to detect movement along the border, identify actual personnel numbers, and track the location of threats all while being unobserved to the individuals on the ground. With their long loiter times, Predators allow officials to monitor gaps along the border while maximizing the efforts of ground personnel in actual interdiction missions. After witnessing the functionality of actual Predator operations in Afghanistan, this author realizes the value in having high definition video sensors overhead during dangerous operations. This type of technology certainly has a place in homeland security missions, and future capabilities will provide a clear advantage to U.S. personnel in combating border security. This force multiplier mindset is one CBP has adopted and publicizes regularly to justify the success of its drone program. Long loiter times, remote area access, and flexibility during National Special Security Events are common claims. Border security stops terrorism Zuckerman, Bucci, Carafano, no date (Jessica Zuckerman, Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policyj and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, 13, 7-22-2013, "60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org... CCC) Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser"April 2013. Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser were arrested in April 2013 for attempting to carry out an attack on a Via Railway train travelling from Canada to the U.S. The attack, authorities claimed, was supported by an al-Qaeda element in Iran, although there is currently no evidence that it was state-sponsored.[205] The exact route of the targeted train has not been identified, and Iranian authorities vehemently deny that al-Qaeda is operating within Iranian borders. Esseghaier and Jaser have been charged in Canada with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group, participating in a terrorist group, and conspiring to interfere with transportation facilities for the benefit of a terrorist group. Esseghaier has also been charged with participating in a terrorist group, and both men face up to life in prison.[206] The two men are awaiting trial. Chiheb Esseghaier wants to represent himself, basing his defense on the Quran instead of on the Canadian criminal code, which has caused delays in the proceedings.[207] Continued use of border surveillance technology is crucial to the detection of and response to threats on the border Haddal 10, Specialist in Immigration Policy, 8/11/10 (Chad C. Haddal, Congressional Research Service report, August 11, 2010, "Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol" https://www.fas.org..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) Perhaps the most important technology used by the Border Patrol are the surveillance assets currently in place at the border. The program has gone through several iterations and name changes. Originally known as the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS), the program"s name was changed to the America"s Shield Initiative (ASI) in FY2005. DHS subsequently folded ASI into the Secure Border Initative (SBI) and renamed the program SBInet Technology (SBInet). Once it is beyond the pilot phase, SBInet will, according to DHS, develop and install "new integrated technology solutions to provide enhanced detection, tracking, response, and situational awareness capabilities."19 The other program under SBI is the SBI Tactical Infrastructure program, which, according to DHS, "develops and installs physical components designed to consistently slow, delay, and be an obstacle to illegal cross-border activity."20 In the late 1990s, the Border Patrol began deploying a network of Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems (i.e., camera systems), underground sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-faceted network designed to detect illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. This Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) attempted to ensure seamless coverage of the border by combining the feeds from multiple color, thermal, and infrared cameras mounted on different structures into one remote-controlled system with information generated by sensors (including seismic, magnetic, and thermal detectors). When a sensor is tripped, an alarm is sent to a central communications control room at a USBP station or sector headquarters. USBP personnel monitoring the control room screens use the ICAD system to re-position RVS cameras towards the location where the sensor alarm was tripped (although some camera positions are fixed and cannot be panned). Control room personnel then alert field agents to the intrusion and coordinate the response. Information gathered from surveillance activities is key to any effective response to terrorist threats along the border Fisher 12, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief, 5/8/12 (Michael, Department of Homeland Security, "Written testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security hearing titled "Measuring Border Security: U.S. Border Patrol"s New Strategic Plan and the Path Forward."" http://www.dhs.gov...; accessed 7/15/15 JH@ DDI) Information gathered from reconnaissance, community engagement, sign-cutting and technology together provide situational awareness and intelligence and helps us to best understand and assess the threats we face along our borders. Information and intelligence will empower Border Patrol leadership and front line agents to get ahead of the threat, be predictive and proactive. Integration denotes CBP corporate planning and execution of border security operations, while leveraging partnerships with other federal, state, local, tribal, and international organizations. Integration of effort with these organizations will ensure we bring all available capabilities and tools to bear in addressing threats. Lastly, through rapid response, we will deploy capabilities efficiently and effectively to meet and mitigate the risks we confront. Put simply, rapid response means the Border Patrol and its partners can quickly and appropriately respond to changing threats. Goal 1: Secure America"s Borders The 2012 Strategic Plan has two interrelated and interdependent goals. In the first goal, the Border Patrol will work with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners to secure America"s borders using information, integration and rapid response in a risk-based manner. There are five objectives within this goal: Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States Manage Risk Disrupt and Degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) Whole-of-Government Approach Increase Community Engagement I. Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States The current risk environment is characterized by constantly evolving threats that are both complex and varying, and the Border Patrol must strategically apply intelligence to ensure that operations are focused and targeted against the greatest threats. The Border Patrol"s ability to prevent and disrupt such threats is enhanced through increased information sharing and operational integration, planning, and execution with our domestic and foreign law enforcement partners. Integration with our federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners" intelligence and enforcement capabilities into the planning and execution of CBP operations is critical to our ability to secure our nation"s borders. The use of necessary surveillance technology is key to the identification and prevention of terrorist threats on the border Office of Border Patrol 4, September 2004 (THE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, "National Border Patrol Strategy" http://www.au.af.mil..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) The Border Patrol currently uses a mix of agents, information, and technology to control the border. The Border Patrol"s ability to establish situational awareness, monitor, detect, respond to, and identify potential terrorists, instruments of terrorism, and criminals relies heavily on interdiction and deterrence-based technology. Having the necessary technology to support the Border Patrol priority and traditional missions cannot be overstated. In the future, there must be continued assessment, development, and deployment of the appropriate mix of personnel, technology, and information to gain, maintain, and expand coverage of the border and ensure that resources are deployed in a cost-effective, efficient fashion. Technology which enhances operational awareness and effectiveness includes camera systems for day/ night/infrared work, biometric systems such as IDENT/IAFIS, processing systems like ENFORCE, sensoring platforms, large-scale gamma X-rays, and aerial platforms, and other systems. Technologies requiring modernization include wireless and tactical communications and computer processing capabilities. Coordination between Border Patrol and inspectional personnel at the ports of entry ensures the most efficient use of trained personnel and technology. In the future, the Border Patrol will take advantage of the targeting and selectivity tools made available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the National Targeting Center. The continued testing, evaluation, acquisition, and deployment of appropriate border enforcement technologies will be pursued vigorously so that the maximum force-multiplier effect is achieved in support of both the priority and traditional missions. Any gap in security on the border allows international terror groups to come into the United States Wilson 15 [Reid Wilson, 2/26/15, covers national politics for the Washington Post, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com... jf] A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Maximized surveillance on the border is key to stopping terrorism Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., jf] One of the unexpected results of our study was recognition of the importance of networked intelligence in elaborating objectives for and measuring effectiveness of border security.11 This came about for many reasons. First, all of the focus missions are best understood in national terms: Border security contributes significantly to several high-level national objectives, but results depend sensitively on interactions with and the performance of other federal and local agencies, as well as economic and demographic conditions outside of DHS"s control. Second, national-level effectiveness depends not just on individual component or agency effectiveness but also on components" ability to share information and work collaboratively, i.e., to network. This is perhaps most obvious with respect to preventing terrorism, in that individuals might enter the country who are vaguely suspicious but who cannot reasonably be arrested at the border. Responsibility for follow-up then transfers to, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, the FBI"s ability to follow up"either immediately or when further information emerges"might depend critically on information collected and effectively transferred by border agencies to the FBI. The word "effectively" is key because all agencies are deluged with data. The 9/11 Commission"s report dramatized the consequences of ineffectiveness: It is not that information for apprehending the perpetrators did not exist, but rather that the dots were not connected and the relevant agencies did not cooperate well (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004). Third, national-level law enforcement also depends on the effectiveness of the justice system, including the ability to convict and punish. That, in turn, often depends on authorities being able to construct an extensive, fact-based story of criminal behavior from which, cumulatively, guilt can reasonably be inferred by a jury. Fourth, the nature and quality of information collected by border-security components, the consistency with which it is collected, and the effectiveness with which the data are both transferred to national databases and"where appropriate"highlighted in cross-agency actions, are leverage points for improved national-level effectiveness, especially in relation to terrorism- or drug-related functions. Border-security eff orts sometimes will query detected travelers against data sets of known or suspected terrorists or criminals. This is especially relevant at ports of entry, ports of egress in some modes, and in cases in which border enforcement detains an illegal crosser. In other settings, border-enforcement agencies collect as much information as possible on individuals, their conveyances, license plates, accounts, and other records of persons detained for crossing illegally but for whom no prior records exist. The same is true in the maritime regions when individuals are arrested for illegal drug smuggling or illegal migrant smuggling. The collected information can become future tactical intelligence (and used in prosecutions) if the detained person becomes involved in criminal or terrorist functions at a later date. Discussions with component agencies indicate that this is an important capability to measure. Technologically, it is even possible to tag individuals so that subsequent surveillance within the United States (or another country) is possible.12 Border surveillance prevents terrorist groups from attempting attacks Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., pg 19, jf] The principal contributions that border security makes to counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on flows into the country of people or materials. These contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and orchestrated. Through a number of planning efforts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events (DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security programs contribute to terrorism security efforts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). This decomposition of attack planning provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security eff orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative, and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when border-security measures are perceived to be effective, terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all. This could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture. For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of fingerprints as part of the normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. This effort makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more difficult for terrorists to evade border-security efforts. Drones Drones are critical to combat bio- and chemical-terror Koerner 2015 (Matthew R, Duke University School of Law, J.D. expected 2015, "DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: REDEFINING EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY", 64 Duke L.J. 1129) Senator Dianne Feinstein, a staunch advocate of governmental surveillance n1 and Chairman of the 113th Congress's Senate Intelligence Committee, n2 recently found herself, rather ironically, as the target of surveillance. n3 One day at her home, Senator Feinstein walked to the window to check on a protest that was taking place outside. n4 Much to her surprise, a small drone n5 hovered on the other side of the window, only inches away, spying on her. n6 The drone immediately flew away. n7 Senator Feinstein's experience is just one example of drones being used for surveillance within the United States. But her story and others like it n8 have sparked significant controversy over the use of drones for domestic surveillance, which falls within a broader debate [*1131] on privacy and governmental surveillance programs. n9 Advocates of robust federal surveillance policies champion governmental surveillance as the only way to prevent terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States. n10 President Barack Obama defended these surveillance programs as ""modest encroachments on privacy'" that "strike the "right balance' between national security and civil liberties." n11 In comparison, privacy advocates envision these surveillance programs leading to a dystopian, totalitarian government watching over its citizenry - undetected but omnipresent. n12 References to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four n13 abound. n14 [*1132] Apart from the surrounding privacy-concerns debate, drones currently provide many practical benefits and their projected applications seem limitless. n15 Based on their obvious advantage of being unmanned, drones have the capability to conduct missions previously considered too risky, dangerous, or impracticable. These applications are also provided at continuously decreasing costs and with the latest technological sophistication, such as the capability to see through physical obstructions, to detect various chemical and biological agents in the air, to recognize human faces and license plates, and to fly in strategic, coordinated formations. n16 Drones provide effective surveillance of the borders Spagat 2014 (Elliot, "Drones replacing officers in Mexican border surveillance", Nov 13; www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20141113/drones-replacing-officers-in-mexican-border-surveillance) The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border. It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled " to surpass 18,000 " and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles. Under the new approach, Predator B aerial drones, used in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials with direct knowledge of the effort said on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts, who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes " perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or perhaps a drug-laden Hummer, they said. About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, while the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity " footprints, broken twigs, trash. About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as "change detection," since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol"s parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there"s not traffic, whether it"s tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." If the video shows the terrain unchanged, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher calls it "proving the negative" " showing there isn"t anything illegal happening there and therefore no need for agents and fences. The strategy was launched without fanfare and is being expanded as President Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order by the end of this year to reduce deportations and enhance border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, applauded the approach while noting surveillance gaps still remain. "We can no longer focus only on static defenses such as fences and fixed (camera) towers," he said. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who coauthored legislation last year to add 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 350 miles of fencing to the southwest border, said, "If there are better ways of ensuring the border is secure, I am certainly open to considering those options." Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and from between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The first step is for Border Patrol sector chiefs to identify areas least likely to attract smugglers, typically those far from towns and roads. Analysts scour the drone videos at operations centers in Riverside; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Sierra Vista. After an initial survey, the drones return within a week for another sweep. Privacy advocates have raised concerns about drones since Customs and Border Protection introduced them in 2006, saying there is potential to monitor innocent people under no suspicion. Lothar Eckardt, the agency"s executive director of national air security operations, said law-abiding people shouldn"t worry and that cameras are unable to capture details like license plate numbers and faces on the ground. He looked on one September morning as a drone taxied down a runway in Sierra Vista, lifted off with a muffled buzz and disappeared over a rocky mountain range into a blue Arizona sky. About a dozen computer screens line the wall of their trailer, showing the weather, maps and real-time images of the ground below. Eckardt said there is "no silver bullet" for addressing border security but that using drones in highly remote areas is part of the overall effort. If there"s nothing there, he said, "let"s not waste the manpower here. Let"s focus our efforts someplace else, where they"re needed." Drones are necessary to protect the border Ingram 2013 (David, How drones are used for domestic surveillance, Jun 19, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0619/How-drones-are-used-for-domestic-surveillance) The U.S. government has made no secret of its use of drones to monitor the United States border with Mexico. The Obama administration has been defending its surveillance tactics since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden released secret documents revealing a massive database of daily telephone records, as well as coordination between the NSA and social media companies. The programs are designed to target militants outside the United States who are suspected of planning attacks, but they inevitably gather some data on Americans, U.S. officials said. In a May speech, Obama defended the use of armed drones abroad but said the United States should never deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. The Justice Department had disclosed that two domestic law enforcement agencies use unmanned aircraft systems, according to a department statement sent to the Judiciary Committee and released on Wednesday by Grassley's office. The two are the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday asking why the Justice Department did not earlier mention the FBI's use of drones. At Wednesday's hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said she was concerned about the privacy implications of drone surveillance. "The greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today," Feinstein said. Mueller reiterated that drone use is rare. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs," he said. Mueller is due to retire when his term expires in September. Border drones effectively and efficiently monitor the border RussiaTimes "14 (November 13, 2014, http://rt.com..., 7-3-15) Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States" border with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in desolated areas the government agents can"t realistically patrol. The unmanned aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy R10; known internally as "change detection" R10; since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence R10; like footprints, broken twigs, trash R10; of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights, with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The program is expected to expand the the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "It"s not a comprehensive immigration solution or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people R10; plus maintenance staff R10; to operate, coming out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPB"s Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. "Instead, the question is: Why can"t we have more of them in my district?" Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the US-Mexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in the first half of the year. "Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones," McNeal said. "This is the kind of crisis where, if you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress." The agency"s "unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations," a CBP official told Nextgov. The president"s request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of agency drones to only nine. Domestic drones k2 solve for terrorism Bauer 13 (Max Bauer, of ACLU of Massachusetts 9-11-2013, "Domestic Drone Surveillance Usage: Threats and Opportunities for Regulation," https://privacysos.org... CCC) Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, are an emerging and rapidly-expanding development in domestic surveillance technology. [4] On Valentine"s Day 2012, President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, legislation authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop regulations to facilitate the growing usage of drones in domestic airspace. [5] Drones are best known for their use in military operations [6] including the use of weaponized drones for targeted killing. But drones have been used for domestic surveillance purposes for years [7] and their usage is expected to grow exponentially. [8] The FAA has issued 1,428 drone operator permits since 2007 (as of mid-February) and predicts there will be 10,000 drones deployed within the next five years. [9] A public information request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed that numerous universities and law enforcement agencies have been approved to use drones by the FAA. [10] Of course, the widespread use of drones for domestic surveillance raises serious privacy concerns. [11] Drones can be outfitted with high definition [12] and infrared cameras, [13] and even license plate readers. [14] Drones "present unique threats to privacy," in the words of one privacy advocate. [15] Why? They are smaller " potentially insect-sized, [16] can fly longer " perhaps soon in perpetuity, [17] and are not bound by the historical, practical check on law enforcement excesses we've had as a result of limited police resources. [18] In a seminal 1890 law review article aptly-titled The Right to Privacy, future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized that "instantaneous photographs" have invaded the secret precincts of private and domestic life"Of the desirability " indeed of the necessity " of some such protection there can, it is believed, be no doubt." [19] Brandeis and his co-author Samuel Warren were ahead of their time when they wrote that article but even they couldn"t foresee anything like the domestic surveillance schemes that have arisen over a century later. Drones Used in Massachusetts and Response to Boston Marathon Bombings. Late in 2012, the Boston Globe reported that a SWAT team in Massachusetts had filed an application with the FAA for a drone. [20] As of April 2013, there were no police drones yet in Massachusetts but Waltham-based defense contractor Raytheon was flying many of them in testing capacities. [21] Surveillance and war contracting companies hope to expand their market from military to domestic law enforcement. [22] Following the explosion of two bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, parts of the city shut down as the search for a suspect continued, prompting Ron Paul to write: "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself." [23] Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told the public shortly afterward that he seeks more surveillance cameras (there are already hundreds) in downtown Boston. [24] And further, he said, he wants to have drone surveillance for next year"s marathon. [25] Drones K2 stop terrorism Byman, 13 (Daniel L. Byman, Director of research at Center for Middle East Policy, 8/2013, http://www.brookings.edu... CCC) The Obama administration relies on drones for one simple reason: they work. According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban"top figures who are not easily replaced. In 2010, Osama bin Laden warned his chief aide, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who was later killed by a drone strike in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in 2011, that when experienced leaders are eliminated, the result is "the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced as the former leaders" and who are prone to errors and miscalculations. And drones also hurt terrorist organizations when they eliminate operatives who are lower down on the food chain but who boast special skills: passport forgers, bomb makers, recruiters, and fundraisers. Drones have also undercut terrorists" ability to communicate and to train new recruits. In order to avoid attracting drones, al Qaeda and Taliban operatives try to avoid using electronic devices or gathering in large numbers. A tip sheet found among jihadists in Mali advised militants to "maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts" and "avoid gathering in open areas." Leaders, however, cannot give orders when they are incommunicado, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible when a drone strike could wipe out an entire group of new recruits. Drones have turned al Qaeda"s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders Drones take out terrorist leaders Al-Haj, 15 (Ahmed Al-Haj, writer for the Stars & Stripes and AP the big story, 7/10/2015, http://www.stripes.com... CCC) Yemeni security and military officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike killed four al-Qaida members travelling by car in the coastal city of Mukalla. The officials say the airstrike took place on Friday night in Mukalla, the capital of Yemen's sprawling eastern Hadramawt province. The explosion was heard in some parts of the city. Al-Qaida's Yemen branch, considered to be the most dangerous offshoot of the terror network, has made gains in the province and captured Mukalla earlier this year. The officials say at least five other militants were wounded in the airstrike. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to reporters. Al-Qaida has profited from the turmoil that has engulfed Yemen, and U.S. drones have continued to target top al-Qaida leaders there. AT Retaliation AT: Retaliation Ayson flips neg- terrorism is not an existential risk Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, "After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects," Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33.7, Francis & Taylor) A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the @257;rst place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in signi@257;cant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-@257;rst century might bring would fade into insigni@257;cance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. No US nuclear retaliation Neely 13 (Meggaen Neely, The George Washington University Master of Arts (M.A.), Security Policy Studies 2012"2014 (expected) Baylor University Master of Arts (M.A.), Public Policy and Administration 2010"2012, Richard D. Huff Distinguished Masters Student in Political Science (2012) Baylor University Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science and Government, Research Assistant, Elliott School at George Washington University, Research Intern, Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Communications Intern at Federation of American Scientists Graduate Assistant at Department of Political Science, Baylor University, "Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism", March 21, 2013, http://csis.org...) Because of the difficulty of deterring transnational actors, many deterrence advocates shift the focus to deterring state sponsors of nuclear terrorism. The argument applies whether or not the state intended to assist nuclear terrorists. If terrorists obtain a nuclear weapon or fissile materials from a state, the theory goes, then the United States will track the weapon"s country of origin using nuclear forensics, and retaliate against that country. If this is U.S. policy, advocates predict that states will be deterred from assisting terrorists with their nuclear ambitions. Yet, let"s think about the series of events that would play out if a terrorist organization detonated a weapon in the United States. Let"s assume forensics confirmed the weapon"s origin, and let"s assume, for argument"s sake, that country was Pakistan. Would the United States then retaliate with a nuclear strike? If a nuclear attack occurs within the next four years (a reasonable length of time for such predictions concerning current international and domestic politics), it seems unlikely. Why? First, there"s the problem of time. Though nuclear forensics is useful, it takes time to analyze the data and determine the country of origin. Any justified response upon a state sponsor would not be swift. Second, even if the United States proved the country of origin, it would then be difficult to determine that Pakistan willingly and intentionally sponsored nuclear terrorism. If Pakistan did, then nuclear retaliation might be justified. However, if Pakistan did not, nuclear retaliation over unsecured nuclear materials would be a disproportionate response and potentially further detrimental. Should the United States launch a nuclear strike at Pakistan, Islamabad could see this as an initial hostility by the United States, and respond adversely. An obvious choice, given current tensions in South Asia, is for Pakistan to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear launch on its territory by initiating conflict with India, which could turn nuclear and increase the exchanges of nuclear weapons. Hence, it seems more likely that, after the international outrage at a terrorist group"s nuclear detonation, the United States would attempt to stop the bleeding without a nuclear strike. Instead, some choices might include deploying forces to track down those that supported the suicide terrorists that detonated the weapon, pressuring Pakistan to exert its sovereignty over fringe regions such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and increasing the number of drone strikes in Waziristan. Given the initial attack, such measures might understandably seem more of a concession than the retaliation called for by deterrence models, even more so by the American public. This is not an argument against those technologies associated with nuclear forensics. The United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue their development and distribution. Instead, I question the presumed American response that is promulgated by deterrence advocates. By looking at possibilities for a U.S. response to nuclear terrorism, a situation in which we assume that deterrence has failed, we cast doubt on the likelihood of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike and hence cast doubt on the credibility of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike as a deterrent. Would the United States launch a nuclear weapon now unless it was sure of another state"s intentional sponsorship of nuclear terrorism? Any reasonable doubt of sponsorship might stay the United States" nuclear hand. Given the opaqueness of countries" intentions, reasonable doubt over sponsorship is inevitable to some degree. Other countries are probably aware of U.S. hesitance in response to terrorists" use of nuclear weapons. If this thought experiment is true, then the communication required for credible retaliatory strikes under deterrence of nuclear terrorism is missing. The threat of a nuclear retaliation is exaggerated " even stolen material can be easily traced Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) This gloomy picture overstates the difficulty of determining the source of stolen material after a nuclear terrorist attack. In the wake of a detonation, the possibility of stolen fissile material complicates the task of attribution"but only marginally. At the end of the Cold War, several countries"particularly in the former Soviet Union"confronted major nuclear security problems, but great progress has been made since then.40 Although no country has perfect nuclear security, today the greatest concerns surround just five countries: Belarus, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa.41 In addition, not all of those states are equally worrisome as potential sources of nuclear theft. Substantial concerns exist about the security of fissile materials in Pakistan and Russia (the latter if simply because of the large size of its stockpile), but Belarus, Japan, and South Africa would likely be quickly and easily ruled out as the source of stolen fissile material. Belarus has a relatively small stockpile of fissile material"approximately 100 kilograms of HEU42"so in the wake of a nuclear terrorist attack, it would be easy for Belarus to show that its stockpile remained intact.43 Similarly, Japan (one of the United States" closest allies) and South Africa would be keen to allow the United States to verify the integrity of their full stocks of materials. (In the wake of a nuclear terror attack, a lack of full cooperation in showing all materials accounted for would be highly revealing.) Iran is not believed to have any weapons-usable nuclear material to steal,44 although that could change. In short, a nuclear handoff strategy disguised as a loose nukes problem would be very precarious.45 No retaliation " international cooperation and limited suspects solve Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) There are at least five reasons, however, to expect that attributing a nuclear terrorist attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack. First, no terrorism investigation in history has had the resources that would be deployed to investigating the source of a nuclear terror attack"particularly one against the United States or a U.S. ally. Rapidly attributing the attack would be critical, not merely as a first step toward satisfying the rage of the victims but, more importantly, to determine whether additional nuclear attacks were imminent. The victim would use every resource at its disposal" money, threats, and force"to rapidly identify the source of the attack.47 If necessary, any investigation would go on for a long time; it would never "blow over" from the victim"s standpoint. The second reason why attributing a nuclear terror attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack is the level of international assistance the victim would likely receive from allies, neutrals, and even adversaries. An attack on the United States, for example, would likely trigger unprecedented intelligence cooperation from its allies, if for no other reason than the fear that subsequent attacks might target them. Perhaps more important, even adversaries of the United States"particularly those with access to fissile materials"would have enormous incentives to quickly demonstrate their innocence. To avoid being accused of sponsoring or supporting the attack, and thus to avoid the wrath of the United States, these countries would likely go to great lengths to demonstrate that their weapons were accounted for, that their fissile materials had different isotopic properties than the type used in the attack, and that they were sharing any information they had on the attack. The cooperation that the United States received from Iran and Pakistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks illustrates how potential adversaries may be motivated to help in the aftermath of an attack and stay off the target list for retaliation.48 The pressure to cooperate after an anonymous nuclear detonation on U.S. soil would be many times greater.49 Third, the strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities stemming from an attack and the rate of attribution (as depicted in figures 1 to 3 above) suggests that the probability of attribution after a nuclear attack" with its enormous casualties"should be even higher. The 97 percent attribution rate for attacks that killed ten or more people on U.S. soil or that of its allies is based on a set of attacks that were pinpricks compared to nuclear terrorism. The data in those figures suggest that our conclusions understate the actual likelihood of nuclear attribution. Fourth, the challenge of attribution after a terrorist nuclear attack should be easier than after a conventional terrorist attack, because the investigation would begin with a highly restricted suspect list. In the case of a conventional terror attack against the United States or an ally, one might begin the investigation at the broadest level with the U.S. Department of State"s list of fifty-one foreign terrorist organizations. In the case of a nuclear terror attack, only fifteen of these FTOs have state sponsors"and only one sponsor (Pakistan) has either nuclear weapons or fissile materials. (If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that number will grow to two, but there is no overlap between the terror groups that Pakistan supports and those that Iran assists.) Finally, any operation to detonate a nuclear weapon would involve complex planning and coordination"securing the weapon, learning to use it, planning the time and location of detonation, moving the weapon to the target, and conducting the attack. Even if only a small cadre of operatives knew the nuclear nature of the attack, the planning of a spectacular operation would be hard to keep secret.50 For example, six months prior to the September 11 attacks, Western intelligence detected numerous indications that al-Qaida was planning a major attack. The intelligence was not speci fic enough"or the agencies were not nimble enough"to prevent the operation, but the indicators were "blinking red" for months, directing U.S. attention to al-Qaida as soon as the attacks began.51 Turns Case Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance " empirics prove and turns case Haggerty and Gazso 2005 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005), pp. 169-187 "Seeing beyond the Ruins: Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats" JSTOR; accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However, a great deal of organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals adopted in the days after the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts. In previous incarnations these proposals had often been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs" or to address other crimes, such as money laundering. The September 11 th attacks gave the authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation for long-standing legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities, justifying existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against terrorism. Ultimately, the police, military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of increased funding, new technology and loosened legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism. Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the development of new "secret search" provisions. Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillance-related measures including legal enhancements to their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of cryptography, and provisions for governmental agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on their customers (Burnham, 1997). All of these proposals were recycled and implemented after the September 11th attacks now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions requiring banks to exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities as a means to counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an RCMP Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker gangs" [emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by the development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized record of information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be made available to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate. Such provisions raise the specter of informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has already indicated that this ostensible anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch domestic criminals. It will also be used to scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try and determine whether they might be a pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable goals, they also reveal how a host of other surveillance agendas have been furthered by capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse. Lone wolf terror attacks are used to justify disproportionate increases in surveillance and military operations abroad Lennard, Senior News Analyst for Vice News, 10/27/14 (Natasha Lennard, Brooklyn-based Senior News Analyst for Vice News, VICE News, October 27, 2014, "'Lone Wolf' Terrorist Acts Will Be Used to Justify the Surveillance State" https://news.vice.com..., accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) The phenomenon of individuals committing violent and murderous acts in the name of an ideology is nothing new in the US. The FBI's Operation Lone Wolf investigated white supremacists encouraging autonomous violent acts in the 1990s. Why, then, are we seeing pundits and politicians newly focus on the "lone wolf" category? There's no simple answer, but we can at the very least see that the old binary, distinguishing terror as the act of networked groups versus lone madman mass killings " a distinction that has tacitly undergirded post-9/11 conceptions of terrorism " doesn't serve the latest iteration of the war on terror. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, suggested that "the Internet, as well as certain specific Muslim extremists, are really firing up this lone-wolf phenomenon." Whether intentionally or not, the Senate Intelligence Committee chair performed a lot of political work with that one comment. Crystallizing "lone wolves" as a key threat domestically helps legitimize the US's current military operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. With or without established connections, the Islamic State's far-reaching tentacles of online influence encouraging individuals worldwide cement the group as a threat to the homeland " which is always useful for politicians struggling to legally justify another protracted war. In this way, attributing attacks to homegrown "lone wolves" is more useful for current US political interests than attributing them to madness alone. The assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Which is not to say that "lone wolf terrorist" is a flawed designation for attacks by ideologically motivated individuals. In many ways it seems apt, and any challenge is welcome to the all too basic distinction that imbues group terror with motive while dismissing individual acts as madness. The "lone wolf" straddles the ill-conceived gap between madman and terrorist node. It's an intersection all too complicated for the inexpert punditry of Fox News: "They are terrorist acts, to be sure," Megyn Kelly said about Canadian gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, adding "but this guy was also a nutcase." Furthermore, the assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Under the premise that terror networks ran like arteries through US Muslim communities enabled an era of profile-driven preemptive policing that has been nothing short of racist. Entire mosques in New York were designated terrorist organizations to enable police surveillance. The NSA's meta-data collections claim justifiability on the premise that terror was locatable by tracing networks of communication. The "lone wolf" phenomenon should at least prompt the questioning of the sort of profile-based counter-terror efforts that assumed terror lurked in any network of Muslims, and that the mass hoarding of communications data was vital to national security. However, the rhetoric surrounding this type of domestic threat already bodes ill for civil liberties. If the hunt for terrorist networks has been plagued by ethnic profiling and overreaching spycraft, an established threat of "lone wolf" attacks gives a defensive imprimatur for unbounded NSA-style surveillance " anyone can wield a hatchet with ideological ire. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul said on This Week, finding such lone actors in advance of attacks is like "finding a needle in a haystack." And as Feinstein said the same day, "You have to be able to watch it, and you have to be able to disrupt them." As such, the era of the "lone wolf" terrorist does not only spell the end of the bunk distinction between motivated group and deranged individual. It ushers in the dawn of a new era of justification for our totalized state of surveillance and national security paranoia. Surveillance would increase after a terrorist attack Feaver 1/13/15 (Peter D., 1/13/15, Foreign Policy, "10 Lessons to Remember After a Terrorist Attack," Peter is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow @ Duke University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy, http://foreignpolicy.com..., 7/16/15, SM) In particular, it is striking how some of the things that were "obvious" in the days and weeks after 9/11, but then were gradually forgotten, have become obvious again:W06; Terrorists succeed when they are abetted by intelligence failures. Or, put another way, terrorists only need to get lucky once to "succeed," whereas counterterrorism has to be lucky all the time to "succeed."W06; Even robust intelligence and law enforcement may not guarantee 100 percent safety and security. By global standards " certainly by the standards of Western democracies " France has a particularly formidable counterterrorist structure. But it failed in this instance.W06; When terrorists succeed in an attack, citizens demand that the government do more to protect them " even if they have already been doing a lot. And steps that would have seemed heavy handed before the attack, say aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorists or visible demonstrations of presence by the security forces, are deemed not just tolerable but necessary. Moreover, savvy political leaders will understand that one of the benefits of a stronger official response is that it is a hedge both against dangerously stronger vigilantism and also against additional pressure from some segments of the public to do more than is wise. Terrorism leads to crackdowns History.com, Reaction to 9/11, http://www.history.com..., 2010 "Today," the French newspaper Le Monde announced on September 12, 2001, "we are all Americans." People around the world agreed: The terrorist attacks of the previous day had felt like attacks on everyone, everywhere. They provoked an unprecedented expression of shock, horror, solidarity and sympathy for the victims and their families. Citizens of 78 countries died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11, and people around the world mourned lost friends and neighbors. They held candlelight vigils. They donated money and goods to the Red Cross and other rescue and relief organizations. Flowers piled up in front of American embassies. Cities and countries commemorated the attacks in a variety of ways: The Queen Mother sang the American national anthem at Buckingham Palace"s Changing of the Guard, while in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro put up huge billboards that showed the city"s famous Christ the Redeemer statue embracing the New York City skyline. Meanwhile, statesmen and women rushed to condemn the attacks and to offer whatever aid they could to the United States. Russian president Vladimir Putin called the strikes "a blatant challenge to humanity," while German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder declared that the events were "not only attacks on the people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people." He added, "We will not let these values be destroyed." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien denounced the "cowardly and depraved assault." He tightened security along the border and arranged for hundreds of grounded airplanes to land at Canadian airports. Even leaders of countries that did not tend to get along terribly well with the American government expressed their sorrow and dismay. The Cuban foreign minister offered airspace and airports to American planes. Chinese and Iranian officials sent their condolences. And the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, visibly dismayed, told reporters in Gaza that the attacks were "unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable." "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack," he said, "and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration." But public reaction was mixed. The leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas announced that "no doubt this is a result of the injustice the U.S. practices against the weak in the world." Likewise, people in many different countries believed that the attacks were a consequence of America"s cultural hegemony, political meddling in the Middle East and interventionism in world affairs. The Rio billboards hadn"t been up for long before someone defaced them with the slogan "The U.S. is the enemy of peace." Some, especially in Arab countries, openly celebrated the attacks. But most people, even those who believed that the United States was partially or entirely responsible for its own misfortune, still expressed sorrow and anger at the deaths of innocent people. On September 12, the 19 ambassadors of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of the member nations. This statement of solidarity was mostly symbolic"NATO did not authorize any specific military action"but it was still unprecedented. It was the first time that the organization had ever invoked the mutual defense section of its charter (intended to protect vulnerable European nations from Soviet invasion during the Cold War). NATO eventually sent five airplanes to help keep an eye on American airspace. Likewise, on September 12 the United Nations Security Council called on all nations to "redouble their efforts" to thwart and prosecute terrorists. Two weeks later, it passed another resolution that urged states to "suppress the financing of terrorism" and to aid in any anti-terrorism campaigns. But these declarations of support and solidarity didn"t mean that other countries gave the United States a free hand to retaliate however, and against whomever, it pleased. Allies and adversaries alike urged caution, warning that an indiscriminate or disproportionate reaction could alienate Muslims around the world. In the end, almost 30 nations pledged military support to the United States, and many more offered other kinds of cooperation. Most agreed with George Bush that, after September 11, the fight against terrorism was "the world"s fight." Terrorists Hate US Al Qaeda Al Qaeda is expanding and plotting attacks against the West Hubbard 6/9/2015 (Ben, Al Qaeda Tries a New Tactic to Keep Power: Sharing It, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/middleeast/qaeda-yemen-syria-houthis.html) BEIRUT, Lebanon " After they routed the army in southern Yemen, fighters from Al Qaeda stormed into the city of Al Mukalla, seizing government buildings, releasing jihadists from prison and stealing millions of dollars from the central bank. Then they surprised everyone. Instead of raising their flags and imposing Islamic law, they passed control to a civilian council and gave it a budget to pay salaries, import fuel and hire teams to clean up garbage. The fighters receded into the background, maintaining only a single police station to arbitrate disputes. Al Qaeda"s takeover of Yemen"s fifth-largest city in April was the most direct indication yet that the group"s most potent regional affiliates are evolving after years of American drone strikes killing their leaders and changing to meet the challenge posed by the Islamic State"s competing and land-grabbing model of jihad. While the image of Al Qaeda has long been one of shadowy operatives plotting international attacks from remote hide-outs, its branches in Yemen and Syria are now increasingly making common cause with local groups on the battlefield. In doing so, they are distancing themselves from one of Osama bin Laden"s central precepts: That fighters should focus on the "far enemy" in the West and not get bogged down in local insurgencies. In recent weeks, the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has allied with armed tribes to fight Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, putting that alliance on the same side of the country"s civil war as the United States and Saudi Arabia. In Syria, Qaeda-allied fighters are important members of a rebel coalition against President Bashar al-Assad that includes groups supported by the West. This strategy has clear benefits for a group that has long been near the top of the United States"s list of enemies by allowing it to build local support while providing some cover against the threat of foreign military action. But despite Al Qaeda"s increased involvement in local battles, American officials say the group remains committed to attacking the West, a goal that could be easier to plot from sanctuaries where it enjoys local support. Cooperating with others could also give Al Qaeda a long-term advantage in its competition with the extremists of the Islamic State, analysts said. Since its public break with Al Qaeda last year, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has stolen the jihadist limelight by seizing cities in Syria and Iraq and declaring a caliphate in the territory it controls. This has won it the allegiances of other militant cells from Libya to Afghanistan. The Islamic State has insisted that other groups join it or be considered enemies, a tactic that has alienated many in areas it controls. And its public celebration of violence, including the beheading of Western hostages, helped spur the formation of a United States-led military coalition that is bombing the group. Al Qaeda"s branches in Syria and Yemen have taken a different route, building ties with local groups and refraining from the strict application of Shariah, the legal code of Islam, when faced with local resistance, according to residents of areas where Al Qaeda holds sway. When Al Qaeda took over Al Mukalla in April, it seized government buildings and used trucks to cart off more than $120 million from the central bank, according to the bank"s director, Abdul-Qader Foulihan. That sum could not be independently verified. But it soon passed control to a civilian council, giving it a budget of more than $4 million to provide services, an arrangement that made sense to local officials seeking to serve their people during wartime. "We are not Qaeda stooges," said Abdul-Hakeem bin Mahfood, the council"s secretary general, in a telephone interview. "We formed the council to avoid the destruction of the city." While the council pays salaries and distributes fuel, Al Qaeda maintains a police station to settle disputes, residents said. It has so far made no effort to ban smoking or regulate how women dress. Nor has it called itself Al Qaeda, instead using the name the Sons of Hadhramaut to emphasize its ties to the surrounding province. One self-described Qaeda member said that the choice of name was deliberate, recalling that after the group seized territory in southern Yemen in 2011, the country"s military had mobilized to push it out with support from the United States. "We were in control for a year and six months, we applied God"s law, we created a small state and the whole world saw it, but they did not leave us alone," the man said in an interview with a Yemeni television station. "So we came here with the name the Sons of Hadhramaut, but the people here know who we are." American officials have long considered the terrorist group"s Yemeni branch, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous to the West. It has sought to carry out attacks against the United States, and it retains sophisticated bomb-making expertise. Now, Yemen"s civil war has given the group an opportunity to expand, analysts said. Can"t deter Al-Qaeda Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") The third type of terrorist who might prove undeterrable were they to acquire these weapons is Al Qaeda itself. Unlike terrorists who serve the liberation claims of a particular group of people, Al Qaeda does not depend for its support on a particular population who could be subjected to revenge or retribution following an attack. Thus the attackers on Afghan soil. Once Afghanistan had served its function as a base, it was dispensable as far as Al Qaeda was concerned. Since their goal is not the acquisition of power itself but the punishment of the United States and its strategic allies, they cannot be stopped by political negotiation, concession, or appeasement. Nor are they susceptible to the incentives that make some armed groups conform to the laws of war in order to achieve international recognition or legitimacy. This indifference to incentives and sanctions applies not merely to Al Qaeda but to any cult with charismatic psychopaths at its head. It is hard to see what political action a state could have taken to deter the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo before it released toxic agents in the Tokyo subway system. 9 Unlike political groups seeking liberation or national territory, these cults cannot be engaged politically, and since they are closed and conspiratorial, they are difficult to infiltrate and neutralize. The logic of deterrence that once kept state violence in some kind of check has no traction with loners and the cult leaders of global terrorism. Since they promise their followers eternal life, they create a cadre of undeterrables. Standard rationality doesn"t apply to Al-Qaeda " they cannot be deterred Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") In the examples considered so far, it has become clear that where armed groups have a real prospect of obtaining recognition and statehood, they may be persuaded to abstain from terrorism. Where their success in this struggle depends on retaining the support of local populations, they may also conclude that restraint pays better than atrocity. But these incentives and restraining factors do not apply to all terrorist groups. No such factors discipline the conduct of Al Qaeda. They have no aspirations to statehood and therefore no incentive to play by any known rules. They do not serve a determinate population and are therefore unconstrained either by their supporters" moral code or by their vulnerability to reprisal. They even appear indifferent to casualties inflicted on Muslim populations who live or work in proximity to their targets. This is what makes them so dangerous. This is also why they cannot be engaged politically and must instead be defeated militarily. Al Qaeda is therefore a distinctive kind of terrorism, no longer in the service of a people"s freedom or in the name of the overthrow of a given state. The apocalyptic nihilists who attacked the United States on September 11 did not leave behind justifications, noble or otherwise, for their actions. They directed their propaganda and their justifications not at a specific state denying a claim to self-determination, but at the United States as the hated imperial capital of a materialistic, secular, and alien civilization. The so-called martyrs defended their actions in the language of Islamic eschatology, not in the language of rights. 33 Moreover, their intentions were apocalyptic, not political: to humiliate the archenemy of Islam and secure martyrdom in the process. It is difficult to see, in principle, how acts unaccompanied by demands can be accommodated politically. If the goal of terrorism is neither territory nor freedom, if its purpose is to strike a blow that asserts the dignity of Muslim believers while inflicting horror and death upon their enemies, then it is difficult to envisage a political response of any kind. Such an attack cannot be met by politics but only by war. Generic Biological realism explains terrorism " means it"s impossible to stop it Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Yet, even if al-Qaida is diminished, Islamic fundamentalist suicide attacks will continue to be executed by al-Qaida-inspired groups, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Taliban because they are an effective asymmetric tactic against some of the world"s most hardened security forces. Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorists have penetrated British, French, Israeli, and U.S. defenses, among others. Moreover, only suicide terrorists could have executed the September 11 attacks or penetrated the Israeli security corridor bordering the Palestinian Authority, because they alone could navigate the countless security obstacles and be capable of self-destructing at a precise location and time while causing the greatest damage. As Mustafa Alani puts it, "It"s what we call a thinking, walking bomb. He watches the whole scene [and] chooses the best time and best location."4 Suicide terrorism is the ultimate smart bomb, demonstrating unparalleled political commitment and personal resoluteness. Scholars have examined Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism primarily through the lens of international politics, economics, and cultural studies, and each offers important insights into the motivation and recruitment policies of groups that practice it. There is, however, another discipline that can make a useful contribution"the life sciences. We argue that the application of concepts and approaches from the life sciences yields new insights into (1) the causal context of Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism, (2) the motivation of suicide terrorists, and (3) policy approaches to subvert this form of terrorism. A consilient approach, incorporating ideas from the life sciences and the social sciences, can aid social scientists and policy analysts in addressing the problem of Islamic suicide terrorism.5 The life sciences can be a source of new analogies and examples that might help scholars and analysts to approach the problem in fresh ways and derive effective policies.6 Our argument is important for three reasons. First, understanding the motivations of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is critical for creating policies to stop them, ideally before they become terrorists. Second, our approach helps to illuminate why few Islamic fundamentalist terrorists defect and how policies may be crafted to promote defections. Finally, it advances the goal of consilience"that is, using insights from human evolution and ecology, as well as from the social sciences, to create a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of human behavior. In essence, consilient approaches bridge the gap between the life sciences and the social sciences. For the advancement of knowledge concerning human behavior, there may be no more important task than removing the barriers between the life sciences and the social sciences, which we believe will revolutionize both fields of study.7 The evolutionary structure of terrorist organizations makes them impossible to deter Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Alpha males try to resolve this inevitable tension through male bonding. By persuading non-alpha males that they are all "family," alpha males may be able to dampen intragroup tensions. Evolutionary psychology also helps to explain why this strategy will be effective. Humans evolved in small-group dominance hierarchies"principally the family and extended family hunter groups. Accordingly, the human mind is well suited for comprehending and bonding with small groups of dozens or, at most, 100 or 150 people.24 To be sure, humans may bond with larger units (e.g., a country), but that requires an extensive effort by the state (e.g., years of nationalistic education). In mimicking the family bond, male-bonded groups often assume the task of educating young males, providing another family-like service. Young people often embrace indoctrination into a belief system through a religion or an educational system, or the combination of the two, such as in madrassas.25 Emulating the family also makes the male-bonded group more resilient"harder to penetrate and to destroy"similar to the family or the mafia and suggests they must be targeted in unique ways. The dynamics described above are found among all societies, not only those of the Islamic world. Alpha males will seek to co-opt non-alpha males into male-bonded societies in which violence is controlled by alphas and guided toward out-groups, not in-groups (and especially not targeted toward the alphas). In this study, however, we limit ourselves to examining factors that we argue contribute to Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism. Of course, even within the Islamic world, individuals will possess other motivations to conduct suicide attacks. For example, there is evidence that at least some Iraqi male teenagers have been forced to train as suicide bombers under fear of reprisals against their families. Terrorism"s engrained in Islamic societies " it"s the only way for non-Alpha males to achieve status Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Baldly put, polygyny means mates for some men and none for others. And who will not obtain mates? It will not be those with advantages, but rather those who lack them. Non-alpha males will be the reproductive losers, and this gives them great motivation to use force, the sole area in which they possibly hold a reproductively relevant advantage over alpha males. Alpha males and non-alpha males understand the ramifications of polygyny for their relations: polygyny will heighten in-group violence against alpha males by non-alpha males absent a mechanism that directs this violence to an out-group. From the perspective of alpha males, suicide terrorism offers some interesting possibilities. A non-alpha male in a polygynous society with high levels of gender differentiation wants to find a way to project power, preferably through violence. In this way, he hopes to obtain greater social status and thus greater reproductive success. An alpha male in the same society wants to find a way to channel that violence to out-groups without allowing the nonalpha male to achieve social status through violence, which ultimately could threaten the interests of the alpha males. Suicide terrorism, sanctioned and applauded by religious belief, represents an attractive strategy in this context. If alpha males can persuade non-alpha males that (1) their violence should be directed to out-groups, (2) that thereby these non-alpha males will greatly increase their social status and make their families proud, but (3) they will have to die and experience their reproductive success vicariously through their kin, or in the afterlife, then the threat of in-group violence can be decreased. For some non-alpha males, becoming a shaheed is the most effective response to the human evolutionary conundrum produced by male dominance hierarchies, high levels of gender differentiation, and the scarcity of females resulting from polygyny.40 In 2003 Robert Pape found that among Islamic suicide terrorists, 97 percent were single and 84 percent were male. If one excludes the Kurdistan Workers" Party, which promotes gender equality, the gender ratio rises to 91 percent.41 These young men come predominantly from lower socio-economic strata of society than those involved in nonsuicide terrorism, despite the somewhat anomalous case of the September 11 attacks. Evolutionary psychology would predict that this subpopulation would be most susceptible to the lure of suicide terrorism. Islamic religious texts promise the shaheed seventy-two virgins in the afterlife. 42 Miller and Kanazawa note, "It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivate many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single."43 Failed suicide bombers may not admit to this temptation as motivation for their action, perhaps considering it too vulgar or impious. Nevertheless, it can be a key draw for a male contemplating poor reproductive prospects in this life. In March 2004, Husam Abdu (also Abdo), a sixteen-year-old failed suicide bomber captured at an Israeli checkpoint in Gaza, explained to Israeli intelligence officials that his dwarfism made him the object of ridicule at school, and he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with virgins in paradise. 44 Another captured would-be suicide terrorist, a Moroccan man, aged twenty-six, suffered from facial disfigurement.45 A study of suicide bombers in Iraq conducted by the U.S. military found that they were almost always single males from eighteen to thirty, with a mean age of twenty-two and no children. 46 The study concluded that most are "alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark."47 Immigration DA (WIP) tag Levy 6-3 (Gabrielle, Capitol Hill analyst at US News, "Signs of Life For Immigration Reform," June 3 2015, http://www.usnews.com...) With comprehensive immigration reform essentially dead on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future, Republicans appear poised to advance a series of incremental measures to address the hot-button issue amid political pressure to tackle the broken system. W06; GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have proposed potential areas of compromise they hope can help the party handle the delicate balance between appeasing the demands of the base in beefing up border security while addressing the practical economic need for foreign labor.W06; The moves come amid almost no progress on immigration legislation since the then-Democratically controlled Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. The impasse led President Barack Obama to issue executive orders protecting some groups of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation " infuriating Republicans in the process.W06; With the unilateral moves halted by a federal judge, congressional leadership has been content to sidestep the thorny issue after losing a faceoff in March in which they unsuccessfully tried to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to a rollback of the Obama actions. But the looming presidential race has increased the sense of urgency among some of the rank and file eager to see the party raise its standing among Hispanic voters.W06; "If you"re a Republican [running for president], you at minimum want the immigration issue neutralized, and maybe gain votes where Mitt Romney was unable to get them" in 2012, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Foundation for American Policy.W06; While any of the the piecemeal proposals faces long odds to passage and even less chance of cooperation with the White House, one area of focus appears to be on guest worker programs that would increase the number and accessibility of visas for both high- and low-skilled workers. The reform already has bipartisan support.W06; "When it comes to illegal immigration, what"s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. "From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let"s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program."W06; Some studies have suggested that, instead of taking away jobs from Americans, those workers help spur economic growth. It"s a position immigration advocates hope to use to sell the issue to a broader constituency.W06; "If you don"t have a restaurant worker working in the kitchen " you"re not going to have good jobs, waiter jobs, management jobs in restaurants for Americans," says Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. "So we need to connect with the middle class and show that immigration is good for the middle class."W06; NOGALES, AZ - JANUARY 21: The U.S.-Mexico border fence on January 21, 2014 in Nogales, Arizona. (Photograph by Charles Ommanney/Reportage by Getty Images)W06; RELATEDW06; Tracing the 2016 Fault LinesW06; Aguilar"s organization has suggested setting up guest worker programs for low-skilled workers that would allow the number of visas to fluctuate based on the needs of businesses. The system, particularly suited to the needs of the agricultural industry, would allow workers to come into the U.S. for a few months of the year, then return to their home countries.W06; A more narrowly tailored bill from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also gained some interest from advocates on both sides of the aisle. The measure, which has yet to move in committee, would increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields, and make it easier for those workers to stay in the U.S.W06; "Just like in business, I don't want the smart people working in my competitor's business, I want them working in mine," Johnson said. "The same thing should be true for a national economy: If we use American resources to educate the brightest people from around the world ... we should provide every incentive for the brightest minds to be working here to grow our economy." |
30 | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00034-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Concealed carry broadens deterrence by keeping criminals in dark. |
14 | 88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00002-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual Orientation is a choice After reading popular opinion, I feel like I'm arguing the tough side here, but I WILL PREVAIL. Before I continue the debate I want to make sure everyone that might read this debate understands that I have nothing against homo-sexual people, I simply am participating in this debate out of opinion. On to the debate. I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, because of three key points: the way people are raised, what they experience in life, and what they choose to become. My first point is the ways we are raised. Every experience that we go through, affects the choices we make throughout life. From the moment we are born things start changing us. One of the ways I believe sexual orientation is chosen, is through the orientation of the parents. If you are raised by to gay parents, I am sure from the moment you are adopted they will teach you that being gay/lesbian is perfectly fine, If not even normal. Another example is if you have very lenient parents. I don't mean to say that strict parents wouldn't let their children be gay, but let's say you were raised with only one parent who had to work long hours. You would be very free to make a lot of your own choices, including sexual orientation. If you are raised and grow up with gay friends and/or family you are very likely to possibly wonder about what being gay/lesbian is like. Another example is life experiences. Many people that are "born" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples. They may "experiment" with the same gender and ultimately chose to switch orientation. As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation. I understand my opponents point about trying to change my sexual orientation. I am straight , and when I thought about this I realized that I would not be able to. However, I make the point that had I been raised in a different situation I may have felt confused growing up and changed orientation. My last point for this round is the ultimate decision. What sexual orientation you chose is one of the largest choices in your life. It decides how you will act socially around other genders, and your own. If you get married, sexual orientation decides who you will possibly spend the rest of your life with. I believe that there is one moment in each of our lives when we decide what sexual orientation we are. This may occur during the anytime, but is usually during the first half of our lives. Our parents may have personal opinions, and try to raise us a certain way. This usually succeeds, because we are taught during a young very impressionable time in our lives. Our parents are the only ones around during these early years and their opinions matter the most to us during that time. I urge my opponent and others who may read this to look at their opinions and decide whether some of them may have come from your parents, because I know a lot of them have for me personally. In conclusion for this round I believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Whether this choice is made by our parents in the way they raise us, or by us after confusing life experiences depends on your personal life. Back to my opponent now. |
47 | 27ba4775-2019-04-18T19:45:43Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Tourney Round 2, Debate No. 12: Art and/or Music are Important in Grade School Throughout this debate, I have repeatedly stressed how music and art are simply not necessary in grade school education. And I wish to end what has been a spirited and excellent debate with the following four points. 1. Art and music do not prepare a person for the workforce, which is the goal of the educational system. 2. Music has not been proven to raise children's IQ's. 3. Curricular music and art will not help those who are gifted - the Renoirs and Beethovens of our age. 4. Art and music achieve exactly the same thing as reading, writing, and arithmetic, but without actually learning the reading, writing, and arithmetic part. My first point is that art and music are not needed by the workforce. For the 97% of the workforce that doesn't go into art or music, it will not be a requirement. Please do not let my opponent belittle this point. Physics, Geometry, and Algebra are all required of those entering the workforce. Art is not. My opponent is right. Employers are looking for a good, well-rounded high school education. A well-rounded education that does not in any way have to include art or music, according to state standards. My opponent continually says that we should not remove art or music from school syllabi, but he fails to realize that these courses are not ON the school syllabi established by the state. My next point deals with an argument that my opponent hinged much of his final round on, though he included it only as an afterthought to his conclusion in his second round. My opponent says that music raises children's IQ. I disagree. Now, hear me out. I know that it's practically common knowledge that music increases IQ. "Mozart makes you smart," after all, and we play Bach concertos for our babies all the time. But let us look at these studies that my opponent points to. The study operates on a survey. The surveyed people indicate whether or not they play a musical instrument, and for how long, and then they take an IQ test. Many people have looked at the results, noted that, on average, the more musical people have higher scores, and made the argument that more music makes a person more intelligent. After all, what else could it be? Well, read the explanation that the authors of the study cited think cause it. "Schellenberg isn't sure why music lessons are associated with higher IQ and stronger academic performance, but he has several theories: Children with higher IQs have more cognitive ability to handle the mental challenges of music lessons and school, so music lessons probably exaggerate that advantage. School itself boosts IQ, so the school-like features of music lessons such as learning to read music might also lead to improved intellectual functioning, Schellenberg speculates. " So what is it that makes students in music classes more intelligent? Schellenberg doesn't hypothesize that music is what makes them more intelligent. He says that it is the school-like setting of music courses which boosts IQ. And if a music class will boost IQ, how much more will another course (like science or math) boost it? You see, IQ isn't raised by more music classes - it's just that people who are, on average, more intelligent, take more music courses and stick with the music courses they take. I'm willing to bet if we took another survey, students who had more science or math would also have an even more marked difference in IQ's than that caused by an increase in art education. But where could we find students like that? Hmm. .. Oh, I don't know. Maybe Japan? And if, as my opponent claims, it is IQ that we should be attempting to raise, then aren't we shooting ourselves in the feet when we teach classes that don't raise IQ as much as a class like math or science? Something to think about. One of the assumptions my opponent makes is that music and art classes will greatly benefit parents with truly gifted children. But do you honestly think that Renoir is worse off because he didn't have an in-school doodling time? Or that Mozart would have been so much better if he had only played the kazoo in grade school? The fact is, most of the great artists and musicians of the world didn't learn their talents in grade school. Musical prodigies are born with an innate sense of music - they don't get it from early teaching, but from within themselves. The great artists of the Renaissance and the Classical period of art didn't learn their techniques from their fourth-grade teachers, but through apprenticeships to the grandmasters of the time. Those who truly want to learn music or art, those who are truly driven by it, will get their education, with or without formal instruction or rich parents. Jimi Hendrix was self-taught, using a one-stringed guitar that his father found for him in a dumpster. Do you think that learning five or six chords in eighth grade (as I was required to do) would have made him a better musician? Third, there is something with which I wholeheartedly agree with my opponent on. In the last round, he wrote, "art and music are merely more esoteric ways of achieving the same goal as reading, writing, and arithmetic. " And though he was doubtless just trying to stress the importance of art and music, I urge you to look at what I have said throughout this debate. The skills and tools we learn in art class can be learned in our other classes. And in these other classes, we can learn much more than just how to touch a crayon to a piece of paper, but in addition, we learn about history, science, language, and math. School curriculum should not be divided into right-brained art classes, and left-brained math or science classes. By doing so, we actually handicap our creative minds by hindering their ability to attain the skills they will need in order to be successful in life. The skills that are actually required and needed; the skills that are (I think I've probably said this at least twenty times now) significant, consequential, and important. Instead, we should integrate both right- and left-brained teaching methods into our traditional core subjects. My opponent is right. We do not learn the same things from creating a papier-m�ch� volcano as we do when drawing while listening to Beethoven. You see, in the first example, we learned how a volcano worked. In the second, we developed our Crayola stick-figure-dragon-drawing abilities. I can draw a mean Trogdor. But in the meantime, cast your vote for Con. Because art and music classes just aren't important in grade school. |
10 | ea0ed4bb-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Children should be vaccinated Children should not be vaccinated because vaccinations are not safe. The Ecowatch a website who concentrates on our economy and problems in the society stated in an article titled " CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999", "Uncovered documents show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999. The documents, created by a FDA consulting toxicologist, show how federal regulators concealed the dangerous impacts and lied to the public...In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act. A provision of that statute required the FDA to "compile a list of drugs that contain intentionally introduced mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list." In response, manufacturers reported the use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in more than 30 licensed vaccines...". Based on this article published in 2017, how do we know our children will be safe? If they have exposed our children once to dangerous chemicals, how do we know it will not happen again. This demonstrates the government does not care about our children, what are these vaccines really for? We are not experiments to simply test how many chemicals our body can intake, and neither are our children. Vaccines are not safe and neither are our children if we allow them to receive them. Kennedy, Robert. "CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999." EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 17 Apr. 2017, www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2199157054.html. |
7 | 8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00002-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote My opponent attempts to exclude the US from the resolution for various reasons. He contends the US cannot be a model of this situation because it does not allow all members of their society to vote. My response is that the resolution- "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote" does not address children or "all members of their society". The resolution addresses felons, and whether or not they should "retain" the right to vote. In order for a felon to "retain the right to vote", he/she must first be eligible for the right to vote barring the fact they are a convicted felon. In other words a 16 year old (a child in the US) felon cannot retain the right to vote because he/she is not of legal voting age and therefore does not have the right to vote in the first place. Though my opponent implies that the affirmative must "prove this in a society", that is not the aim of the resolution. My premise is that in a democracy, felons should retain the right to vote- at least to some degree, and I used the US as an EXAMPLE of a democratic society which allows most felons to retain the right to vote. More examples are the individual 50 states which are also the individual democracies that regulate the right to vote for felons in different degrees. My opponent's contention that prison does not always rehabilitate has already been addressed. He gives the reader the illusion that I stated prison always rehabilitates, but I made no such statement or implication. I made it clear that my argument is for rehabilitated criminals, and that the goal of incarceration is rehabilitation, though it is up to the states (in the US) whether or not prisoners are rehabilitated to the point where they can benefit from the right to vote. My opponent next contends the US is not a democracy, and therefore his contention stands. However, the US is a "democratic society". Though the US is a Federal Republic, it is a democratic society because it is a Federation of Democratic States. The individual states do enjoy direct democracy, and it is the electoral process for the executive of the central government that does not qualify as a direct democracy. A Federal Republic, though not a direct democracy is a representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If my opponent wishes to have a separate debate about political processes and what constitutes a democracy we may do so, but his attempt to nullify my arguments based on these objections is simply a clever way of not arguing the facts I presented in R1. My opponent's next response is a revision of his second contention. In response to his new revision, this is not a debate about consistency rather whether or not it "should" be that way. I gave the US as an example of not only why it "should" be that way, but that it "is" that way in the US, and it works. Again, my opponent attempts to turn this into an argument about semantics. I did not write the resolution, but I have made my position clear. Had my opponent really wanted to debate the topic he wouldn't have written the resolution in this manner, nor would he have made it clear in his opening argument that he would leave the door open for an argument on semantics should he not be able to address the facts. I gave 4 different examples of how the semantics can be applied, and how my argument is valid for all of them, though he implies I concentrated on only one. Again, we can have a separate debate on semantics, but the confusion is neither my doing, nor my aim, rather it is that of my opponent. I believe my opponent has failed to successfully answer my R1 arguments, and so it is virtually pointless to present new ones as he will probably just ignore them and attempt to argue the straw man again. Though I know the reader will have common sense, I urge you to re-read my R1 arguments after reading my R2 rebuttals. My opponent presented no new arguments in R2. Thank you. |
41 | bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers |
17 | db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00002-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Rebuttals: "Contention 1: Economic Benefits. Legalizing pot allows the United States to allow a wealth of economic benefits in the form of tax revenue and also in the form of liberating costly prisoners from incarceration. We have already seen examples of collecting revenue. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), between January 2014 and October 2014, Colorado accrued 40 million dollars of tax revenue by legalizing marijuana and allowing 21+ citizens to purchase it. Suppose that we extrapolated legalization to the whole country. According to the Huffington Post, this would result in $8.7 billion per year in the form of state and federal taxes. Taxing any good or service allows the economy to grow, because it provides money that is uesd for other programs. In the case of marijuana legalization, these programs translate to education, health care, and drug addiction treatment, valuable impacts in our society. Furthermore, legalizing marijuana prevents costs that are associated with incarcerating individuals. According to the DPA, approximately 750 thousand citizens are arrested for an infraction of marijuana law each year. Furthermore, the cost of incarceration is $47,000 per prisoner per year. This translates to 7 to 10 billion dollars per year that are wasted on locking up stoners (rather than rapists or murderers). Clearly, not only does legalizing marijuana create money; keeping it illegal costs money. This 35 billion dollars could be used to reduce the national deficit, solve other crimes, or perhaps reduce taxes on American citizens." This is only the money the US gets from the tax revenue, and this is nothing compared to the amount of money spent on substance abuse. The U.S spends about $193 billion on illicit drugs, so the economic benefits are outshined by the drawbacks. "Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana reduces crime. Legalizing marijuana prevents police officers from wasting their time arresting harmless stoners, when they could be spending these efforts and resources fighting actually dangerous crimes, such as murder, theft, or rape. According to RollingStone Magazine, marijuana arrests are no longer real "police work";" My source says otherwise, but do not forget, Colorado is one out 4 states that have no restrictions on marijuana, so tell me, how is it known that other states won't have people committing crimes too. Lots of these cops said that they arrested the smokerrs due to possession alone, and they most likely haven't smoked enough to become depressed, anxious, or want to commit crimes, like what is happening in Colorado. As Pro, you need to prove that legalizing marijuana would be beneficial in all of those states. "Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates racial discrimination in law enforcement. It should be clear to the layperson that most marijuana arrests are against racial minorities, particularly blacks. A black individual is no more likely to use pot than a white person but, in Washington D.C., is over 8 times more likely to be arrested for it." Well I will lay some statistics on you, proportionally, blacks cause more crimes than whites do. Not in actuality, but mainly because there are more whites than blacks in this country. Whites make up 63.7% of the U.S population, while blacks make up 12.2%. However, annually whites have an average of 6,484,507 victimizations, and blacks have 4,091,971. Again, the whites have more people, so of course they will have more victimizations, but they have more than 5 times the population of blacks in the U.S, but don't even have twice as many victimizations, and so with the smaller percentage blacks have, they are actually more likely to commit crimes or be accused of one's than a white. Also while there have been confirmed biases against black people by cops, I don't think that nullifies every single case for it, as I don't see proof of that, and I have demonstrated blacks are more likely to commit a crime. " keeping it illegal does not deter its use. In fact, the criminal nature of cannabis provides a compelling reason for drug cartels to enter the country and sell cannabis, with no regard to whether the weed is tainted with dangerous chemicals like PCP. Since the illegality of marijuana fails to have any deterrent effect, legalizing pot will allow the government to closely control and regulate it." If drug cartels come to America, wouldn't that mean that a) marijuana use will be increased? and b) it's likely that the marijuana will be unhealthy? The Drug cartels are not our government, so I doubt they would regulate it. They just want money. And how will the regulations help? It might decrease a few deaths, however, any kind of smoke contains carcinogens, which can give you cancer and destroy your lungs. Are they going to guarantee that it doesn't release smoke? It is still dangerous and can lead to death if this isn't the case. "Americans have freedom of choice. An American citizen should be able to do whatever she want, so long as her actions do not infringe upon the rights of others." Marijuana can lead to committing a bunch of crimes, which does lead to users infringing the right of others, correct? This tramples the freedom in others, and as I have said, what makes you think it is safe to legalized pot across the U.S? If it goes against the rights of others, and marijuana is the cause, then marijuana shouldn't be legal. It is simple. Sources: https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.amren.com... http://www.infoplease.com... |
43 | 7eec3518-2019-04-18T17:15:01Z-00009-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tobacco should be banned In this debate, I will be talking about why smoking should be banned or at least partially banned (i.e., illegal to sell). There are many risks to smoking that apply to both the smoker and the people who have to put up with secondhand smoke. No one likes the smell of cigarette/cigar smoke, and most smokers regret it later after finding out about what it does to the lungs (sometimes even seeing their own charred lungs through endoscope!) or developing cancer or emphysema. It is hard to quit. The solution is not to do it in the first place, and surgeon general warnings don't seem to do the trick. Society would benefit from a tobacco ban. |
18 | d5755f0f-2019-04-18T11:39:48Z-00000-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Christian Church Denominations should be aboilished I think Denominations do more harm than good. First, they divide people on lines of loyalty to a specific leader. They take what the particular leader for granted without examining the words on a deeper level, as is seen in churches like West Borough Baptist Church and similar, Secondly, when a person or church does bring up disagreements with the leader, the church face legal problems because the denomination owns the church and will cut support if they make waves. I think churches should not have any state/national/ or international leader because it encourages people to look and examine theology for themselves |
5 | aef01efd-2019-04-18T15:53:36Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Expression Through Social Media (good/bad) Although this is true, it is your responsibility to use social media in a responsible manner. Social media should not be used to replace your social life, I do agree with this, but instead should be used to 'augment' your real life. It is your fault if you send 2 horrible sentences, just as it would be to say it in real life. Addiction is not social media's fault, rather the fault of the user. Social media is a useful tool and is used the way the user wants it to be used. |
29 | ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00009-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Birthright citizenship exacerbates dilemmas around illegal immigration. |
14 | 54ffb6ed-2019-04-18T15:47:55Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality is a Choice Thanks, TMC. My case:A. Homosexuality in AnimalsNumerous animal species display homosexual orientations [1, 2] Some great examples include:Dolphins"Dolphins have a position on the top tier of animal intelligence, and are comparable to both chimpanzees and humans in cognitive and social abilities. Great diversity exists in dolphin societies as well, and numerous same-sex liaisons have been identified. In one incredible case, a pair of gay dolphins enjoyed a seventeen year relationship, while researchers identified a whole pod of dolphins--composed entirely of males--whose members were certainly not lacking in romantic experiences. It has become clear that dolphin relationships are extremely strong, regardless of the specific orientation...Many other dolphins have been found to be bisexual, enjoying passionate contact among [both sexes]." [2]Bonobos"Bonobos, which resemble miniature chimpanzees, are not only among the world's most intelligent animals but are in fact humanity"s closest relative...They're famous for using a language of love, rather than a language of aggression, to resolve problems and communicate with each other. Since many of the conflicts occur between two males or between two females, homosexual bonding is a frequent occurrence among these amorous apes. Sexual encounters may serve to increase social standing among females...but it also occurs among males, who may take a more 'play fight'-based approach." [2]Rams"Scientific studies have shown that up to an incredible eight percent of male sheep may form exclusively male-to-male pair bonds, forsaking all contact with the female ewes...These same sex couples do not mate, but they act as a couple in every other way throughout their lives. The homosexual herds stand out as an example of diverse relationship status among animals." [2]And, surprisingly, Dragonflies"Investigations have revealed a surprisingly high frequency of matings between same-sex dragonflies. Understanding the reasons for same gender pairings among such small invertebrates is challenging, and the interactions are poorly understood even today. Environmental chemistry and the unavailability of partners may be one factor influencing dragonfly mating behavior." [2]Since animals lack the rationality required to make higher-order decisions, they did not choose to be lesbian or gay, but were born that way or driven to such action by instinct. In other words, they had no choice in the outcome of their sexuality.B. Behavioral AnalysisLearned behavior can be untaught. [3] Something that is innate cannot be untaught. For example, no psychologist could teach me to turn my blues eye brown or teach me how to turn my white skin chocolate. In this same way, homosexuality cannot be untaught. The APA, America's premier psychological association, has found that homosexuality cannot be "cured" and cannot be undone via therapy. [4] Other psychological experts concur. [5, 6] Even groups that have tried to unteach homosexuality have acknowledged their failures [7] and some studies supporting homosexuality as a choice retain only dubious credibility at best. [8] Therefore, people don't choose orientation.In fact, "since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation...Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association." [9] Even previously unpublished studies conducted by the military in WWII--a time of pronounced discrimination and stigmatization regarding the LGBTQ community, found that "They were 'conscientious, reliable, well-integrated and abounding in emotional feeling and sincerity.' In general, 'the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements" and was "neither a burden nor a detriment to society.'" [10]C. BiologyIf something is caused biologically, such as the color of my hair, it is not a choice. "Researchers from UC Santa Barbara and Uppsala University found a biological basis for same-sex attraction, locating the origins of homosexuality in the womb. Epi-marks, the genetic switches that regulate how our genes express themselves, can be passed down from mother to son or father to daughter while the fetuses gestate, the researchers found, adding that certain 'sexually antagonistic' epi-marks may also be involved." [11]Recently, a twin study examining more than 7,500 twins made the following conclusion: "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors..The results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior. [12]Besides twin studies, "chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing genetic factors throughout the genome...Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers." [12]Another study of interest regards the physical arousal of homosexuals in response to pheromones. "Gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women...and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine. The conclusion is that sexual attraction...operates similarly on a biological level." [12]Finally differences in brain structure and even birth order have all been linked to homosexuality [12], suggesting possible biological roots. "The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality...One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis...When a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman's immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother's body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual." [13]Regarding brain difference, "The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart." [14]D. ConclusionTo conclude, I can do no better than to quote the American College of Pediatrics: "You are normal. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression. No one knows what causes a person to be gay, bisexual, or straight. There probably are a number of factors. Some may be biological. Others may be psychological…The fact is, you do not choose to be gay, bisexual, or straight." [9]E. Sources1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://listverse.com...3 - http://www.mentalhelp.net...4 - http://www.sgn.org...5 - http://www.mens-wellbeing.com...6 - http://communities.washingtontimes.com...7 - http://www.speroforum.com...8 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...9 - http://en.wikipedia.org...10 - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...11 - http://news.yahoo.com...12 - http://en.wikipedia.org...13 - http://www.slate.com...14 - http://allpsych.com... |
29 | 27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants ==== COUNTER-POINTS ==== P1. My opponent has clarified his position more clearly in this round. The crux of his argument is that he would like to focus specifically on the children of illegal immigrants versus illegal immigrants themselves. I will attempt to argue against that position, but it must be noted that CON places the cart before the horse, as we have a chicken/egg problem (which came first, the illegal alien or their offspring?) If my opponent says that the progeny of illegal aliens are also illegal aliens, then what exactly is the difference? "I argue that these people are not American citizens and they realize it. They do not deserve to live in our extremely tolerant land when they themselves are not true citizens" CON gives a self-refuting proposition when he asserts that illegal immigrants do not deserve to live in our tolerant land by citing just how intolerant he would like America to be. He claims that their children do not belong here, but gives no basis for why the 14th Amendment should be repealed. P2. "So what's so problematic with legal children citizens of illegal immigrants becoming illegal citizens? All they need to do is become legal citizens, which is what true immigrants to the United States and other countries do." Remember what my opponent clarified at the beginning of Round 2. He has stated that his focus is with the children of illegal immigrants, rather than the all-encompassing debate over illegal immigration. In lieu of his clarification, in tandem with his recent question, I ask CON how he proposes infants, babies, toddlers, and children apply for citizenship...? The bottom line is that the 14th Amendment states that people born in the United States are therefore citizens of the United States. Since no actual basis for repealing has thus far been given, it is imperative that CON give a detailed analysis for WHY it should be repealed. Anything less, in my estimation, is grounds for forfeiture. P3. CON alleges that based on the disproportionate number of births places "exacerbate the concerns of immigrants that feel they are being put at a disadvantage." Here CON does not give any description of the "concerns" immigrants would have, and then completely neglects a criticial point in this debate. Those born in the United States ARE citizens, and so he ironically (and quite possibly, hypocritically) places the concern of immigrants over citizens of the United States. He forgets that people born in the United States ARE citizens and does not address why it is supposedly such a bad thing. And so, as we can see, CON still neglects to give an actual reason for repealing the 14th Amendment. Secondly, who is disproportionate? I already cited a statistic that show 8% of all births in the US are attributed to illegal aliens. P4. "We are not "getting rid" of or deporting the people who have birthright citizenship, but simply forcing them to obtain true citizenship instead of automatic citizenship of no charge." Again, CON brings up the clear distinction between illegal immigrants (adults who cross the borders illegally) with their children. How exactly can newborn infants apply for citizenship? If you don't want to deport them, but also not give them a legal status which they are entitled to under the Constitution of the United States, and they are too young to comprehend what citizneship evens means, what else would you have them do? ==== REFUTING ARGUMENTS ==== P1. CON states that had the Framers dealt with our current situation, they would not want citizenship for the offsrping of illegal immigrants. Historically, he is wrong. The Alien and Seditions Act of 1798 [1] made similar arguments until Thomas Jefferson strenusously fought against the unconstitutionality of it, citing the abridging of the 10th Amendment. [2] It wasn't until later, during the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that a more comprehensive and clear amendment be made. That immigration debates have been a long part of American history is irrefutable, which means that the basis for the 14th Amendment has been given considerable thought. P2. CON argues that "birthright citizenship" is outdated during a time of less immigration. This is simply not true. Per capita and percentage-wise, there was far more immigration in the past than there is currently. According to the Washington-based thinktank, the CATO Institute, the foreign-born population of the United States is 8.5 percent of the total population (as of 1990). The proportions in the United States during the period from before 1850 to 1940 were higher--always above 13 percent during the entire period from 1860 to 1930 -- and the proportions since the 1940s were lower. [3] P3. Here, CON posits that birthright citizenship is unfair to immigrants who come here legally. I say it is decidely more unfair, not to mention impractical, for infants who did not choose to born in the United States or anywhere else. Secondly, how exactly it is supposedly "unfair" has still not been addressed by my opponent. He continues to mention how it is unfair for infants to be citizens in the country they were born in, but has thus far not offered one iota for why it is so. P4. CON makes the admission that " While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law." So here we see that, even though CON specifically wants to make the argument about birthright citizenship, his argument is geared towards the parents. Well, which is it? Would my opponent like to talk about illegal immigration, or how the 14th Amendment should be repealed? Secondly, on Point 4, CON admits that uprooting infants, who have no choice in where they are born, is harmful to them. Knowing this would be harmful, I seek clarification for where these children would go, especially since they have a Constitutional right to be citizens who are treated with the same dignity and respect as he enjoys. P6. CON states that a poll indicates that the majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. This is an immaterial non-sequitur, and an Argumentum ad Populum [4]. It's a logical fallacy geared towards an appeal to majority opinion, in hopes that we will all jump on the bandwagon via peer pressure. ==== ARGUMENTS ==== Some opponents to Birthright Citizenship argue that the Jurisdiction Clause invalidates the children of illegal aliens the legality of citizenship. But this is simply not true, because everyone who is in the United States, either legally or illegally, is subject to the laws and ordinances of the United States. So whether visiting the US, and giving birth while on vacation, or coming here with the intent to better the existence of their children, children born in the United States are in fact legal citizens without exception. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, both in 1898 and in 1982, that the 14th amendment should be read inclusively to confer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. In fact, over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, determined that a man of Chinese descent, but who was born in San Fransisco, was in fact an American -- this decision was rendered even at the height of the anti-Chinese immigration movement. [5] ==== CLOSING ==== My opponent has failed to substantiate or legitimize any reason to overturn in the 14th Amendment, and all of his points have soundly been refuted with logic. I await my opponents reply. ==== SOURCES ==== [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.cato.org... [4] http://philosophy.lander.edu... [5] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... |
24 | 4cf458a-2019-04-18T11:38:46Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | The income tax rate should be closer to 0% than it should be to 100% I would like to start off by defining terms: https://www.gov.uk...: Income Tax is a tax you pay on your income. You don"t have to pay tax on all types of income. Dictionary.com definition: the tax levied by a government directly on income, especially an annual tax on personal income. Contention 1You pay tax on many things like benefits you get from your job, medical services, public services, schools, etc. The main point is that tax would improve the welfare of society. Contention 2 and 3 Taking away income tax could potentially violate one's right to life. I define one's right to life as the pursuit of happiness. Income tax goes to various programs that provide money for those in need. The closer to 0% would potentially make these services cheaper. It would take away retirement benefits, benefits for veterans, and food and nutritional assistance. Earned income tax credit assist low and moderate-income working families. The programs provide payments and household benefits. Sources: https://www.cbpp.org... |
47 | 81d5454b-2019-04-18T13:19:41Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Is Unnecessary Here are my arguments (I actually posted them in time!):1. Homework actually teaches kids responsibility. When kids do homework, they learn that it is their fault (NOT THE PARENT'S) if they turn it in late. [1]2. Homework also provides kids with the ability to manage their own time. This is key, and I still struggle with this sometimes; however, students should have learned to be able to manage their own time effectively. [1] This also ties in with perserverance, which essentially states that students don't give up on a project and they keep working until the project is done. If they stick to it, they should be done BEFORE THE DEADLINE! [1]3. Homework helps kids get better grades on their tests. Five studies were taken, and in each, "the average student who did homework had a higher unit test score than the students not doing homework." [2] There were also 12 other studies that prove that homework helps kids get better grades. [2]As a note, the amount of homework recommended for kids varies by their grade. If they are elementary students, they should have less homework, but if they're high school students, they should have more homework. [2][1]. http://memphisparent.com...[2]. http://education.cu-portland.edu...(Yes, I know I didn't take up too much space, but I believe I was "to the point". The websites explain my arguments in much greater detail. Please read them.)I'm eager to hear your rebuttals. Thank you so much for working with me on this, and I again apologize for forfeiting the other debate. |
30 | 219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00062-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Open carry helps educate public about guns Paul Hager. "Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry." November 19th, 2000: "One concern I have about concealed versus open carry is a purely political and psychological one. Given all of the anti-gun propaganda, coupled with the fact that the average person is unaware of how many friends and neighbors carry a concealed handgun, the right to carry for self-defense becomes ripe for a "counter-reformation" to roll back the gains that have been made. [...] Prejudice is based upon ignorance and fear, and stereotypes are impervious to everything except confrontation with reality." |
24 | 2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00007-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Round 1: Pro posts rules and structure, Con posts opening argument Round 2: Pro posts opening argument, Con posts rebuttal Round 3: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals Round 4: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals Round 5: Pro finishes final rebuttal, while Con will not post a round out of fairness This gives each debater the same amount of argument time. |
12 | 8927d9a0-2019-04-18T11:14:46Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Abortion on demand should be illegal Thank you for debating with me. "Because she might have been raped" is not a valid argument for on-demand abortion. That is not what we are talking about. On-demand means for any reason. If I was unclear about that, Forgive me, I would like to be clear now. Rape is a huge exception to the typical and should be recognized as an extreme case. I care a lot about the women who have been violated; I could be gruesome about what I feel should happen to offenders, But that would be a digression, Therefore we are not talking about instances where a rape has occurred. We are talking about consensual sex leading to pregnancy leading to abortion (on demand). Lets go with your assumption "A fetus is a part of a woman's body. " Would you, As a woman, Demand surgery on your body where it is unnecessary? I hope you would not. There are people right now who feel like they should amputate their arm or leg by surgery. Does that mean that we should allow surgeons to operate on them to make them less than what they are? Of course not. That is not normal or good, And it would violate a surgeon's Hippocratic oath. https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . Now certainly, In the case of a life-threatening event where everything that can be done to save the woman and child has been done, And both are likely to die, Perhaps some sort of extreme measure might have to be taken. A doctor has taken their Hippocratic oath after all. Therefore surgery should be by necessity only. Childbirth is the obligation and privilege and honor of a woman. Men cannot get pregnant. They cannot birth a child. Men today still have the draft to face. They face war. They are physically stronger than women and make me furious sometimes with how little effort it takes for them to gain muscle compared to me. They have been and ought to continue to be responsible for taking care of all of the needs of a woman whom they have pledged themselves to, And consummated that pledge with. Women face dangers that are different from men. That is why our roles have historically been unequal and why men have worked to care for women. Does that make women less valuable? I would argue that in a way, It makes us more. Childbirth is as dangerous as it gets, That is why rape should receive one of the most harsh punishments in the land (whether it does or not is not the issue), And why this matter should be held in the highest regard. The life-giving nature of childbirth is sacred, Therefore Abortion should be illegal. A surgeon should be responsible to his Hippocratic oath. He should therefore be liable to the courts the same way purported murderers are liable to the courts. If guilty, Then his punishment should be equal to whatever is deemed most appropriate for a murderer. A woman should be prepared to take responsibility for her sexual actions. Marriage is a protection for her. If she chooses to have sex, Then she has assented to childbirth. It is her choice to do with her body what she will. If that means that a child is born, Then that is what sex is for. (rape is the opposite of assent) A woman who takes pills to self abort does so at her own risk. Miscarriages are harsh things; if she dies from it, That is her own fault. If she goes insane from it, Well that is a risk also. Her guilt is on her head. Unfortunately there is no way to regulate such a thing, So unless this is a matter that can be proven or is between a man and his wife, Or in the matter of the medicine requiring additional medical attention it will be hard to regulate under the current conditions. It might be something worth the same or similar attention as suicide. (Birth control pills are a topic that deserves it's own debate. There are too many nuances that should be properly dealt with, But they venture off this topic. ) I look forward to hearing your counter. |
4 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | im more awesome dan u at evryfink! the word "evryfink" means to be good at indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro?indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably, rather, indeed, quite mad are you bro? indubitably! |
17 | 6f02a9c0-2019-04-18T14:40:29Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Contention 1: Ease of AccessIt is truely easy to acquire Medical Marijuana in America. For the number one example I'll give you our Bluest State in California as an example. Journalist Adam Brown reviewed California's law and revealed that in California and several other states, including DC, that you could be prescribed medical marijuana if, "you have a debilitating condition like "general pain" or "mild depression" or "unspecified symptom syndrome. " [1] We can see that this isn't a black market issue and it's a sugar coated way of legalization of marijuana for the general public without officially doing it. I mean let's alll be honnest here. We've all suffered from some sort of "general pain" in our life time, does that mean that we should all get Medical Marijuana? It's simply wrong and we can see that this is a close connection to Brave New World's Soma. The fact is that many Medical Marijuana advocates would argue that it's mainly used for cancern, but if we observe Colorado we can see that over the majority of the people perscribed Medical Marijuana isn't cancer related and is something perposterous that wouldn't even get a person any type of perscription medicine. [2]We can plainly see that we cannot continue with further legalization of Medical marijuana until we see major reform here, so that the above attrocities are corrected. Contention 2: Safety ConcernsThere are several safety concerns surrounding Medical Marijuana. Like first one can see that Medical Marijuana involves the chemical THC which has been found due to a recent study to increase the rate of brain tumors. [3] They have found that the THC in Canibas slows the bodies anti-tumor responses to a near stop allowing tumors to increase and become more previlent. Many studies show that THC can slow down tumors, but when it is mixed with cannibas and not soley THC injected into the body we can see that it has the oppoisite effect. UK cancer institute director Lesly Walker has found that contrary to popular belief that "It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis," [4]Another study showed that smoking 1 joint increases the percentage that one could get Lung Cancer by 8% and that smoking 3 joints is the equivlence of smoking 20 cigarettes. [5] Other studies have shown to cause many other mental disorders like Skizofrania [6], panic attacks/aniexty [7], and after smoking the joint it increases the rate of a heart attack by 5 times! [8]We can simply see that these risks are way to much and especially for that of Medical Marijuana being used the way that we've seen it be used and the ease of access being way to much we can simply see that these side effects are not worth a tiny bit of being high because of your "pain. "Sources1. (. http://www.cracked.com...) 2. (. http://www.mapinc.org...) 3. (. http://www.jimmunol.org...) 4. (. http://www.reuters.com...)5. (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...) 6. (. http://www.schizophrenia.com...) 7. (. http://www.panicattacks.com.au...) 8. (. http://www.drugabuse.gov...) |
17 | 59d1f8b8-2019-04-18T18:19:18Z-00006-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legalized The amount of deaths caused by alcohol is irrelevant to the use of marijuana. Although it doesn't directly cause death, it does harm the human body. Smoking anything is obviously not advantageous to your health. The use of marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. In addition, marijuana can become addictive after long-term use. It has been reported that when people have tried to quit they experience withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and irritability. |
18 | 82dd47f2-2019-04-18T17:03:15Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Church and State should remain separate. Thank you for the response. Now shall we continue? Onto your first point, I should address that the article you posted is a translation that is not technically included in the the first amendment. Now there is an extent where using religion for legislation is wrong, but it is not the extent you observe. I feel something necessary to this debate is actually something you used consistently through your last speech. I'll summarize it here, but it concerns points you made later in your later points. You consistently bring up the courts. Why is this significant? It gives the perfect balance for allowing representatives to vote and argue using their personal beliefs. You're ignoring the fact that the checks and balances were put in place so there wouldn't need to be a law against such acts, you just need enough people in the minority to have a problem with them. You bring up how these laws will be stood in front of the courts and denied, and that's exactly why there shouldn't be a specific law against them. There's already a system. I would also like to point out that you're right about representatives needing reasoning behind their stance. That's why they get elected. They're able to convince enough people to stand with them on their issues based on their reasoning. If they get up for a speech in the house and sound stupid because they quoted a religious document and no body listens to them, then where was the harm? Maybe a few minutes were wasted, but that's it. If someone provides reasoning to back their belief and people listen, then where's the harm in that? There is none. Concerning your next point about representing within the constitution, I feel it's necessary to point out that the Constitution starts with "We the people of the United States of America." We are a government of the people, for the people and by the people. No laws are created without going through the people. It is not the constitution which first decides what laws are valid; it's the people. If you have a problem with that, well I'm sorry, but that's the way our government works. Now, I would like to point out that when representing the people, if the representatives argue for a religion or try to establish a religious preference they get shut down. I still have not seen an example where a religion was preferred in legislation. I've seen your assertions that the religious use their religion as a shield for their stance, but these people generally use secular arguments for their reasoning. The fact that secular arguments are used means that our government is still secular even with people arguing for their personal beliefs. The mix of church and state can still happen in a secular government. In fact it's necessary, as secular is meant to be all inclusive of beliefs and not exclusive of religious beliefs. I would also like to comment that you took my responses and moved the goalposts to another debate for arguing. I was merely stating that the arguments for each of your examples were not religious. Your debating what the stance should be on them is irrelevant. I've also noticed that you've come around to my first round arguments, in which I stated that under the only way to judge morality without God, it's based on perception. If ones perception of a matter is religious then he is morally required to vote and act based on his perception. The only immorality that exists is the action one does against his personal view of truth. Therefore the only morality we can judge from this is that it's immoral for a representative to vote based on anything but his/her personal beliefs. Concerning your last attack, you took my sentence complete out of context of the paragraph. I didn't say god and the afterlife are fact. In fact, I said the opposite. Your arguing me on it is therefore irrelevant. My point in that paragraph had to do with MMR, which you didn't attack in your last post. Well that concludes my rebuttal. Thank you, and I'm sure round five will go as well as the others. |
48 | a6f23d50-2019-04-18T13:31:49Z-00000-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | should drinking age be lowered My opponent has forfeited his last round which can only be because he wasn't as prepared as I for this debate. His only argument was that I had made a typo. |
38 | 712e9d27-2019-04-18T12:07:36Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | The United States should decriminalize drugs. Drugs, and HealthIt's a well-known fact that drugs (meaning recreational drugs) are extremely dangerous to ones health--this is both in terms of addiction and the fact that each person, can react differently to the presence of drugs in their system, and oftentimes this 'reaction' can warrant emergency treatment and be fatal in some cases. The National Institute of Health reported that since 2012, deaths related do the recreational use of cocaine have risen in the U.S; with more than 7000 people dying from direct overdose in 2015. [1.] https://www.inspiremalibu.com...Additionally, the National Center for Health Statistics found that drug deaths related to heroin have also increased. In 2015, they were triple the percentage that they were in 2010 [2.] https://www.inspiremalibu.com...This increase, has not gone unnoticed by health officials within the U.S--given how large the mortality rates are. Opioids (which are illegal) also make the top of the list in drug-related deaths over the last few years [3.] ahttps://www.usnews.com...In order to get an accurate idea of why drugs can kill; we need to actually understand what happens to the body upon taking drugs. Even in moderate amounts, recreational drugs, come with an extraordinarily high-risk. I will list four drugs (that are the most popular among recreational drug users) and provide a brief description of their effects, and the dangers that they present to the system. CocaineOne of the most popular drugs, cocaine use can lead to many negative side-effects, long-term addiction, and of course, death. When a person takes cocaine (the most common method being to snort it through the nasal passages), it rapidly enters the system, primarily effecting the heart rate and the brain. Cocaine stops neurotransmitters like norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine from being 'reabsorbed' into the brain, which is what creates the so-called high and feeling of euphoria. [4.] Naturally, though, this is not normal, nor is it necessary. Serotonin in particular is an absolutely vital chemical, as it regulates the mood and anxiety levels. Low or inconsistent serotonin levels are strongly associated with depression and other mental health problems. [5.] Now, in terms of what cocaine does to the heart, it can be even more damaging. According the American Heart Association, cocaine use (both long-term and short-term, and including direct cases of overdose) is responsible for 15,000 each year. [6.] http://luxury.rehabs.com...Chest pain itself is incredibly common among cocaine users, with 40% having to be admitted to emergency rooms each year. [see above link.] Arrhythmia, which is an abnormal heart rate, is very widely-developed among cocaine users, and can be serious. [7.] http://www.thepoisonreview.com...As source #6 states, issues with the heart as a result of cocaine use occur because the heart becomes over-stimulated when cocaine enters the system, thus, it damages the valves and inner lining; which in addition to an irregular heartbeat, can cause blood clots in the heart.First-time users, are in fact among the most vulnerable group when it comes to health issues related to cocaine use; which is pretty damning for young teenagers or people within their 20's who may be offered the drug. And if it was legalized, this would surely happen at a greater rate. One could argue that upon legalization, cocaine could potentially be as popular as alcohol among youths. Research from Australia suggests that even casual cocaine-use, can risk heart damage. [8.] The research also showed that cocaine-users had higher blood pressure than people who do not use cocaine, as well a higher pulse; which means they have developed tachycardia--an abnormal heart rhythm. Heroin Upon using heroin, the neurotransmitters within the brain (similarly to cocaine and other drugs) are severely impaired, resulting in poor mood regulation [9.] https://www.drugabuse.gov... and therefore inevitable chemical imbalance. [10.] http://www.pbs.org...Other vital parts of the body, such as the kidneys and intestines, are also badly impacted. [11.] http://www.narconon.org...Other organs that can be damaged are the lungs, and as with cocaine, it can cause blood clots to develop in them. [12.] https://www.sovhealth.com... Other issues such as Empyema (the formation of pus between the lungs and chest area) can also easily be developed among heroin users. In addition, Pneumonia and Bronchial-type infections are also a danger. [see above link.] Once again, if a drug like heroin was to be legalized, I see no reason why use related to it would decrease--if anything, legalization would be a suggestion to the general population that using heroin is safe, thus, it would likely increase. EcstasySimilarly to cocaine, ecstasy and other pill-based highs are relatively common among recreational drug users. [13.] http://m.health24.com...The detriments of these particular drugs are, again, pretty severe. Even minor Ecstasy use can cause seizures. [14.] http://pmj.bmj.com... and heart attacks. [15.] https://www.sciencedaily.com...The effects of ecstasy on the brain (as with cocaine) are also rather alarming. People can develop psychosis/paranoia, and severe anxiety. [16.] http://m.talktofrank.com...CannabisIndeed one of the more mild drugs, but certainly not without its detriments. Cannabis can also cause severe anxiety and paranoia. [17.] http://m.talktofrank.com...And in terms of physical effects, it can increase your heart rate by up to 3 times, lower your blood pressure, and interfere with your blood sugar levels. [18.] http://www.webmd.com...Moreover, cannabis impacts lung-functioning, making people more susceptible to bronchial infections and subsequent lung-abnormalities. [19.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Moral ImplicationsLaws exist in the first place to prevent and protect. It's abundantly clear that illegal drugs are dangerous and can cause extensive damage to people--therefore, they should stay illegal. The government has a moral and practical obligation to ensure the safety of its citizens and to minimize the damages to health that each individual can essentially incur; this is mainly why under 21's in the U.S cannot legally purchase alcohol, why tobacco use is being made illegal in public places around the world, and why medically-trained physicians are reponsible for our health care and are the only people who should make the decision as to whether we can take a certain drug; excluding minor drugs like paracetamol, etc. The point here is that drugs are not supposed to be for recreational use, but are there to treat issues which physicians see fit to treat. Your average citizen doesn't have the medical knowledge or practical experience to decide whether a drug is suitable for them or whether it is indeed safe. And after all, there's enough pressure on physicians to treat problems relating to pre-existing 'legal' drugs like alcohol; with there many cases of alcohol-abuse, alcohol-related hospital admissions, and alcohol-related deaths within the U.S. [20.] https://www.cdc.gov... So, the question is: why should we compound this? If anything, alcohol shows that if a drug is legal, the more widely used and abused it can actually be. |
50 | b8496877-2019-04-18T17:21:16Z-00004-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | everyone should be christian Bro i owned u last time ill tell u tht christians r right and if everyone dun believe in jesus then they gon burn in hell and we should have told them before |
31 | 98fa500a-2019-04-18T17:32:54Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Alchohal http://www.healthchecksystems.com... has a list of harmful effects of drinking here let me share a few Arthritis Cancer Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Heart Disease Hyperglycermia Nervous Disorders Obesity would you rather be sober and happy. Or be extremely happy for a short time and have these sicknesses. It is your choice although drinking may have a few good effects, the problems that is causes completely overpower the good effects. |
13 | cb3a59ce-2019-04-18T13:56:11Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels I think that because it is renewable it is better just want opinions and facts please |
19 | b91f04f4-2019-04-18T15:09:43Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay marriage should be legal nationwide in the US!!! I happily accept Pro's argument. I look forward to a fun and loving debate, and I do hope to perhaps change the minds of both Pro and voters as I have a pretty strong opinion on this particular topic.Since Pro hasn't stated any rules I'm going to post my arguments on why gay marriage should be illegal and then go on to rebuttals of the arguments he has made. Arguments: 1.) I believe we should define marriage first of all and become familiar for the reason of why government recognizes a marriage in the first place. After all, there is a reason why government gives benefits to married people over those who are not married. Marriage should exist so that two people can come together and vow to each other to not only be there for one another forever, but also to raise offspring in such a way that would benefit society through increasing population of that society. The reason of procreation is what gave rise to the reason of the entire institution of marriage in the first place which is to regulate from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities based upon procreation.Because procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, millitary perssonel, entrepeurs, and overall more brain power for the entire country, the government recognizes and promotes marriage through benefits. I'd therefore like to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who, in principle, procreate and together benefit society through sharing obligations of rearing children and providing needed support for the entire family. Because gays cannot procreate, their marriage is not needed and is quite unbeneficial to society. In fact, I'm going to argue it actually hurts and damages the value of traditional marriage and its importance to society. 2. Gay marriage damages the value of traditional marriage to a nation's society. Opening up gays to marriage would then open up opportunities for people who believe in pedophelia, beastuality, and polygammy. If requested I can also provide arguments to why these obviously should not exist in a later round. Furthermore, gay marriage in itself is pointless due to the fact that, as stated before, marriage is to be used as an agreement between man and woman to share certain responsibilities for both each other and the children they procreate (which in turn benefits society). Homosexual marriage validates and promotes homosexual lifestyle. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality. Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex is a legal endorsement of the fungibility of a man and woman in marriage. To set "any two persons" on a par with a man and a woman in marriage is to reduce the worth of their roles. People who affirm gay marriage as equivalent in worth to the marriage of a husband and a wife devalue the worth of a heterosexual marriage. In other words, legalizing gay marriage damages the relationship of procreation to marriage and thus procreating couples dwindle, negatively effecting society. Rebuttals: Having illegal marriage is discrimination. This is not true. Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. However, by making gay marriage illegal we are not taking any rights of gays. I cannot marry a person of the same sex just as someone who is gay cannot. I can marry someone of the opposite sex just as someone who is gay can. There is no discrimination there. People should be allowed to marry anyone they want to.Are you agreeing with pedophillia and polygammy? If straight people can marry who ever they want, then gays should be able to marry who ever they want.As stated previously, straight people cannot marry whoever they want. They can only marry a person of the opposite sex just as a gay person can. The reason why so many people don't want gay marriage legalized is because it is against God.I did not use God in any of my arguments. Many teens are gay and get bullied all the time and legalizing it across the nation will show teens that homosexuality is accepted in society and its okay to be gay. Perhaps there are other ways to deal with this. Two wrongs do not make a right. There are kids in schools who get bullied for plenty of other reasons. Programs where these kids come to know each other and work together would be far more beneficial in my oppinion. After all, I don't believe the teasing of gays would stop even if it were leagalized, especially not immediately. I believe the apraoch I presented would have a far faster effect on stopping ALL bullying and not just gay bullying. |
9 | 9084bde3-2019-04-18T17:31:55Z-00005-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms I assume I'm start with acceptance of the topic. Good luck, I look forward to reading your argument. The floor is yours. |
35 | 50c55103-2019-04-18T16:52:42Z-00003-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Do games teach kids violence. Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org... |
3 | 150432ef-2019-04-18T16:36:32Z-00007-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | The United States Should Promote Free Trade This is for the DDO Olympics politics and government bracket. If you have any questions about the debate format below, mention them before you accept the debate. Full ResolutionThe United States Federal Government should promote a policy of free trade. BoP is on pro.DefinitionsFree trade: "The unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas."[1]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.investopedia.com... |
13 | 8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00005-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption. |
7 | 3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. 1. Under LD debate rules, the definitions have to be made at the outset. However, this is not a debate under LD rules. For a debate.org debate to be made under LD rules, the proponent has to declare that unambiguously in the challenge. That was not done in this case. There are also LD rules pertaining to officially declaring and challenging values and value criteria. Those rules do not apply either. It is free form debate, the intellectual equivalent of a cage match. However, there is no escape from semantics, logic, and verification of facts. Those are inherent to debate. 2. I don't have a problem with Con's definitions as far as they go. The meaning of "democratic" is separately contested below. I also dispute Con's definition of "felony." Note that we are only dealing with convicted felons. Felons who haven't been convicted retain the right to vote. 3. I reject Con's thesis that the pre�minent value at issue is or ought to be democracy. The value at issue is and ought to be good government. If democracy were the pre�minent value, then the Founders would have specified a democracy in the Constitution rather than a republic. Moreover, if democracy were the most important thing, then non-citizens and even small children would be afforded the right to vote. We have a republic, and we restrict voting in the interests of good government. All democratic governments do the same, all in the interests of good government. 4. I challenge Con to say whether or not he favors extending the vote in all elections to non-citizens and small children? If he does not, then I challenge him to explain the principle at work that he uses to override the extension of democracy. 5. Con asserts, "Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act." This assertion is false, because there is clear data that convicted felons are likely to continue exercising poor judgment by continuing to commit criminal acts. The primary interest of career criminals when voting is to undermine the justice system, and therefore that is good reason to withhold voting rights. It is true that some convicted felons will reform and vote according to the general interests of American society. It is also true that some non-citizens and some under-age citizens will exercise the judgment to vote along with the general interests of American society as a whole. The exclusion of those classes of voters is based upon the considerable probability that they will not. The case is as strong or stronger that a convicted felon will not vote with the interests of society considered in the way that non-felons will consider them. Felons can be relied upon to vote overwhelmingly to undermine the justice system. 6. Con rebuts "the thing is the resolution states democratic society. it does not state one certain democratic society such as the U.S. so this argument can be dropped." So can a society be "democratic" without being a strict democracy in which everyone votes and every law is put to a direct vote of the people? The definition of "democratic" is http://www.answers.com... 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" (George du Maurier). A government need not be a strict democracy, as Con supposes, to be characterized by democracy. None of the definitions support Con's strict definition. Moreover, if Con's definition were accepted, then people would truthfully say things like, "There are no democratic governments anywhere in the world." The opposite is quite clear, people recognize that many governments are characterized by democracy without being the strict democracies that Con supposes. 7. Con asks, "If it [is] said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised?" The short answer is that they may have been created equal, but felons went astray after their creation, and their demonstrated lack of judgment resulted in their disenfranchisement. The long answer is that the quoted "created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document. Clarification of the implications of "created equal" lies in the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the classes under which discrimination under law is prohibited, and there is nothing that prohibits discrimination for felony conviction. If the Constitution prohibited discrimination for felony conviction, then felons could not be imprisoned. None of the other protected classes (race, religion, ethnicity) can be imprisoned solely for being a member of the class. 8. Con asks, "what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens?" They are both citizens, but so are small children. Citizenship alone provides no guarantee of a right to vote. 9. Con claims, "my oppent [opponent] states that 'Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians', this argument cant be upheld or proven true, because there is no evidence to prove this claim." It is fair in a debate to call upon the common sense of the audience (or judges). The assertion follows from (1) The main purpose of voting is that citizens may look out for their interests, (2) politicians appeal to the interests of citizens to get votes, (3) criminals have a strong interest in weakening the justice system, and therefore (4) politicians will target criminals with positions that favor weakening the justice system. There is supporting evidence from cases in Florida, cited, wherein Liberal politicians clearly believed they could win the criminal vote. 10. Con claims, "as we can clearly see if we vote for the PRO. we will be punishing criminals twice by taking away the right to vote and by making them serve a sentence." First, there is nothing wrong with punishing someone in two different ways. We punish many felons by both imprisoning them and later putting them on parole, and sometimes also making them register and wear a tracking device. Second, Con agreed that a purpose of imprisonment is not only punishment, but to prevent the criminal from doing further harm. Denying the vote is a proper and reasonable way to prevent the criminal from doing further harm by voting for candidates that promise to weaken the justice system. 11. Con asserts "he [Pro] states that letting felons vote will hurt our economy and justice system. this is not true because there are such felonies that are minor such as J-walking and repeated speeding." This is incorrect. There are three classes of crimes infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. J-walking is an infraction. Repeated speeding is usually and infraction, but might rise to a misdemeanor depending upon the state and the circumstances. Felonies are only the most serious crimes. For example, felony drunk driving generally involves killing someone. A felony is "One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor." http://www.answers.com... Summary Con's rebuttal is an artificial construct that supposes that democracy is a supreme value that ought to trump good government. There is ample evidence that virtually no one believes that have more democracy leads to better government. To the contrary, the Founders preferred a republic, and minors and non-citizens are not allowed to vote -- all in the interests of good government. Felons have proved poor judgment and so the interests of good government should prevail. The resolution is affirmed. |
30 | 80557bae-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00003-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Concealed carry laws decrease crime I accept this challenge. I would like my opponent to clarify the round structure in the next round, if possible. That is all for now.Good luck! |
8 | adc4406d-2019-04-18T15:56:15Z-00001-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion : Should Abortion Be Legalized 1. The opponent stated that "The unborn's not always gonna die" however, abortion is "the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability"[1] . Therefore abortion is the death of an unborn child whether induced or spontaneous. 2. Not all women in all countries have access to safe abortions," Even in cases where abortion is legal, or legal in specific instances, women may still seek unsafe abortions. High costs, a lack of providers, deficiencies in equipment or an inability to demonstrate or meet the criteria needed to obtain the abortion may contribute to her decision to access an unsafe abortion."[2] According to reproductiverights.org, every minute 40 women undergo an unsafe abortion, 10 of whom are girls between the ages of 15 and 19. My opponent asked how many people died per year from getting abortions, here is his answer,"Almost 80,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortion and millions more are seriously injured" [2] which outweighs his estimate of 47,000 women dying from NOT getting one. It is evident that unsafe abortions are more likely to kill women, however ,"Of the estimated 42 million abortions that take place every year, only 22 million occur in a safe and legal environment" [2] Therefore, due to the lack of equipment, medical facilities, money women, especially those in less developed countries are subjected everyday to unsafe abortions. In these countries even if abortion were to be legalized, women would still die from the lack of facilities available to properly carry out safe abortions. Now, imagine if they were legal. More women would get abortions....more women would die. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://iwhp.sogc.org... |
Subsets and Splits