query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
19 | 477fd640-2019-04-18T14:44:27Z-00007-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage should be Legal I will be going for the position that gay marriage should be legal, I am willing to have a fun and knowledgeable debate to anyone who is willing to debate me :) First round will be acceptance of the debate Looking forward to debate :) |
3 | ec2de89b-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Gay marriage should be allowed I want to first start off by saying that I'm am not opposed to homosexuality, I'm just opposed to the word marriage in this debate. Merriam-Webster Online defines a marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Similar definitions can be found across the Internet and in many books, such as the Bible. Now, I'm a fairly religious person, and as such, I do not feel that the sacrament of marriage should be changed just because some people are different. That's just like saying a person is going to go to a movie theater, go into a movie and just because they don't like what they see, they go get the manager to put a different movie on. Other people came to see that movie. And those who are trying to change the movie, forgot what a movie really means, being together as friends, significant others, and family. The reason for marriages is so that a man and a woman could be together for the rest of their lives as they live and love together. As long as homosexuality is legal, two men or two women can live and love together, the government has even gone so far as to institute the idea of civil unions to unite two homosexuals, but still, people continue to make a fuss when what is truly important is being left behind. So, I'm curious to hear, why is it such a fuss for the terminology "to be together?" Thank You |
9 | 684780b9-2019-04-18T19:21:40Z-00006-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | School uniforms ought to be worn in primary and secondary schools. For this debate a "school uniform" is a specific design for clothing designated to be worn while attending academic classes at a school. The school context comprises grades one through twelve of public and private schools in the United States. Different schools and different grades within schools may have different uniforms, as determined by parents and school administration. The paradigm is that of Japanese schools, as shown in anime. http://answers.yahoo.com.... The reasons for requiring uniforms are: 1) A distinct attire enforces behavior suited to the task. Consider why judges wear judicial robes. Clearly, the judicial system would not disintegrate if judges dresses casually. Nonetheless, it is virtually universally accepted that there is an incremental gain in focusing both the judge and the court proceeding that improves justice. It is fundamental to human psychology that costume reinforces attitude. We see also se this in the practices of the police, military, security guards, airline pilots, nurses (and doctors' white coats), professional chefs, and many private companies, like package delivery services. The best schools overseas, in Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong, use uniforms to help maintain a focus on education that leads to better performance. In the US, the Catholic schools, which mostly have uniforms, succeed better than public schools. There are differences besides uniforms that lead to better performance in these schools, but they all relate to discipline and focus. I grant that just having uniforms will not solve all problems. However it is step in the right direction, and we know it is in the right direction because it moves towards the constellation of attributes associated with focus and discipline. In the U.S, the most extensive test of uniform policies was in the Long Beach School system, which produced positive results: "The quantitative outcomes of the policy have been remarkable. Crime report summaries are now available for the five-year post-uniform policy period and reflect that school crime overall has dropped approximately 86%, even though K-8 student enrollment increased 14%. The five categories of school crime where comparisons can be made between 1993 levels and 1999 levels are as follows: (a) sex offenses down 93% (from 57 to 4 offenses); (b) robbery/extortion down 85% (from 34 to 5 cases); (c) selling or using chemical substances down 48% (from 71 to 37 cases); (d) weapons or look-a-likes down 75% (from 145 to 36 cases); and (e) dangerous devices down 96% (from 46 to 2 cases; LBUSD, 1999). ... Analysis of attendance figures has also provided interesting outcomes for the uniform initiative. In the fourth year that school uniforms have been required in K-8 grades, the percent of actual attendance reached almost 95%, noted as the highest point in the 18 years that the district has maintained statistics. Middle schools also registered comparable improvements in student attendance reaching almost 95% (LBUSD, 2002)." http://findarticles.com... 2) It promotes identity with the school and class, which emphasizes the common educational purpose. It puts everyone in the same boat so they are more likely to help each other succeed. This is a reason why players on sports teams wear identical uniforms. It would suffice to identify the team players if, say, one team wore predominantly red and the other predominantly blue, or even just predominantly dark and light. Yet there is widespread agreement that having identical uniforms is important for the team psychology. 3) It removes the distractions of fashion trends and fashion competition from school hours, thereby reinforcing the educational purpose of the enterprise. It helps students focus. "Eddie Scott, principal at Meade Middle on Fort Meade, tells the Baltimore Sun's writer, Anica Butler, "There's research that shows a correlation between appropriate dress and academic performance." Students will not be distracted with who is wearing what brand of jeans, shoes or shirts. Students can focus on learning which is why they are there." http://educationalissues.suite101.com... 4) One of the main reasons that Baltimore parents wanted to have school uniforms was to reduce clothing costs. Chasing fashion fads and buying many different stylish outfits is far more expensive than just a few uniforms. However, while costs are lower for middle and upper income families, there is a potential hardship for poor families. It is well worth it for the school system to provide uniforms to such families. The uniforms are guaranteed to be used, so poor kids get better clothing and costs are lowered overall. Before-and-after studies in the Long Beach and Baltimore schools show that uniforms achieve positive effects. The Wikipedia article on school uniforms cites a study by Brunsma and Rockquemore, which purports to show there is no effect. The full text of the study is posted at http://sociology.missouri.edu... The study is bogus. The key defects are that the study contained almost no public schools, and even more importantly, never considered data from the same school before and after the policies were implemented. The authors basically end up studying schools that already had high levels of discipline, and conclude that if all else is right, then uniforms make no difference. The authors made statistical corrections for the statistically biased sample, but they give almost no information on what they did in order to get the answer they sought. They admit, for example, that Catholic schools achieve better performance, but they apply corrections to the data so it doesn't correlate to uniforms. The authors claim to be surprised by their results, but go on to reveal clear bias. For example, they dismiss the solid before-and-after case of the Long Beach School system by saying that a $1 million study ($10/student) introduced unspecified "educational reforms" that produced the dramatic changes. If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the "reforms" would surely be adopted universally, which they were not. Beyond that, the authors would surely name the reforms if they were so compelling, but they did not do that either. Moreover, absolutely no one in the school system attributed the improvements to anything but the uniform policy. The authors bias shows throughout their intemperate and unjustified conclusions. A statistics package in the hands of a social scientist remains a dangerous thing. The authors made one valid point. They suggest that the parental involvement that precipitated a policy of requiring uniforms in Long Beach may have precipitated other improvements. I suggest that parents and educators showing that they cared about educational performance had a positive effect upon performance. That's a good result and a good reason for parents and educators showing they care by adopting a uniforms policy else where. Adopting school uniforms will not solve all the problems of education. Before-and-after studies show significant improvements in performance, and virtually all of the top schools systems in the US and abroad have uniform policies as part of an overall program that focuses student. The resolution is affirmed. |
4 | e4a6a952-2019-04-18T19:51:21Z-00001-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Cliffs of Dover is a better song than My Name is Jonas *snifff* cerse yu mynameisjonas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yu reely r teh ultimet debatour. *snifff* Yu haff beetin mii, an eye akcept dafeet. *snifff* butt bee warnned mynameisjonas, i Willy bee bak, an whin eye am... eye willy... DETHRUN YU AN TAK MI RITEFULLL PLAC ASSS TEH BIST DEBATOUR EN DIS SIGHT! *snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri snifff an cri* |
3 | 82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy BOP: Pro claims that he only needs to find a single example of a beneficial government intervention to fulfill his burden of proof. This is absurd—he claims that "a free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy"—to prove that, he needs to show that a free market would be harmful overall, not just in one specific case. Definition:Free market—a system of voluntary exchanges based on respect for private property rights. To the extent that there is respect for private property, there is a free market. [Source? As a market anarchist, I think I would know.] Government intervention—for the purposes of this debate, any actions of the United States federal government 1. PatentsContrary to popular belief, IP hinders innovation rather than encourages it. Patents can increase the amount of revenue an inventor would receive for a given idea, but this greater incentive does not necessarily translate into more ideas. Patents also discourage innovation by causing patent-holders to waste much of their time suing people who violate their monopoly rather than inventing. Patents also discourage innovation by restricting the ability of people to improve on existing ideas. Look at the invention of the steam engine. James Watt thought of the idea in 1768, but production didn't really start until 1775, when his monopoly was secured until 1800. Production was slow during those 25 years, and exploded afterwards, and when a superior steam engine was developed, Watt spent most of the 1790s suing its inventor. [1] Because of Watt's monopoly, innovation stalled during those years, with fuel efficiency, for example, stagnating during Watt's patent, but increasing by a factor of five by 1835. [2] This delay of innovation had serious consequences, as the industrial revolution only took off in England after Watt's patent expired and the industry could thrive. But would Watt have had the incentive to invent the steam engine if patents didn't exist? Yes. He actually made most of his money after his patent expired. He was forced to constantly innovate to keep up with the competition, and, as a result, his steam engines were recognized as the best ones and thus the best-selling.What about pharmaceuticals? Don't we need patents for those? No. Historically, the pharmaceutical industry grew much faster in countries were patents were fewer and weaker. The unprotected German industry, for example, grew much faster than the protected British industry, which is the opposite of what you'd expect if IP laws actually encouraged innovation. [3] And when countries did introduce patents, they saw no significant increase in innovation. Switzerland and Italy both had thriving pharmaceutical industries without IP laws, until they were introduced in the late 1970s. [4] Contrary to what one would expect if IP laws actually worked, neither country saw an improvement in pharmaceutical innovation. [4]2. Insider TradingHaving information that others don't have and acting on it is how all money is made in the stock market. If everyone knew that a stock was going to go up, you wouldn't be able to make money buying that stock—the only way you can make money with your information is if other people don't know it. (If a stock was going from $10 to $100, and you knew it, you could make a profit buying now and selling later. But if everyone knew this was going to happen, no one would sell you their stocks at $10.) And people acting on this information that others don't have is a good thing. Everyone can't have universal knowledge—knowledge is spread out over millions of people. The way this knowledge is communicated is through prices. Stock prices communicate knowledge about the health of firms. The more accurate these prices are, the better. Say Firm X is fundamentally insolvent, and is heading toward bankruptcy eventually. It's better for the economy if this happens sooner rather than later, so resources stop being wasted by the inefficient firm. That's where stock prices come in—if they're low enough, some person or other firm could buy a controlling interest cheap and sell off the assets. So, it's better for the economy if speculators drive Firm X's price lower.What's the moral and economic difference between this and "insider trading"? Nothing. Inside traders act on information that others don't have, which is no more unfair than anyone else in the stock market acting on information others don't have. And their actions communicate vital information to the market, like the actions of any other successful traders. By acting on accurate information, inside traders make stock prices more accurately reflect a firm's true value, and let capital be allocated more efficiently. They also lower the volatility of stock prices—they buy low, making the low price higher, and sell high, making the peak price lower. Pro states that if insider trading happens too much, outsiders will "lose confidence in the system" and stop investing, lowering the amount of capital available for corporations. But he fails to provide any facts or evidence to support this assertion. Furthermore, the "outsiders" who trade with insider traders were going to trade anyway—the inside traders didn't force outsiders to buy or sell their stocks, they just bought stocks people wanted to sell or sold stocks people wanted to buy anyway. And because of the inside traders extra demand or supply, the outsiders get a better deal than they would have—if I want to buy a bunch of Firm X's shares, because they're $9.75 now and are going up to $15 later, then I'm actually helping the sellers. They were going to sell anyway, but because of my extra demand, they got $10 per share instead of $9.75. 3. ExternalitiesPro claims that "a truly free market would not prohibit a party from maximizing its profits."—so firms would be allowed to hurt people by dumping dangerous waste, and such. Of course, this is a ridiculous description of the free market. In the free market, you can only do what you want with your own private property if you respect the property rights of others—this is why the government, which initiates force against person and their property, is not part of the market. Maximizing profits is only part of the market if you do it while respecting the property rights of others. Firms dumping waste on other people's land are not part of the market.Pro also claims that companies would dump waste in common lands. But the free market easily solves this problem—with private property. There are only common lands if the government intervenes and makes them so. In a free market, these lands would be someone's private property, preventing corporations from dumping their waste on it if they didn't own the land. While air couldn't be owned, air pollution that damages the air someone breathes, or the property they use, would be a property rights violation, and thus impermissible in a market.Other cases of removing government intervention:War:War spending is terrible for most Americans. Resources, labor, and money are diverted from creating more goods that consumers want to creating destruction and death halfway around the world. Imagine how much better off Americans would be if they had an extra few hundred billion dollars, because the money for war spending wasn't stolen from them by the government.Corporate Welfare:As with war spending, billions is diverted from hard working Americans to special interests. Agribusiness alone gets around $180 billion annually from the government. [5][1] Carnegie, A. (1905), James Watt. Doubleday, Page & Co.[2] Lord, J. (1923), Capital and Steam Power. London: P.S. King & Son.[3] Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 215.[4] Scherer, F. M (2003), "Global Welfare in Pharmaceutical Patenting," mimeo Haverford College, December.[5] http://bit.ly... |
44 | ccd27029-2019-04-18T19:08:42Z-00003-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | In comparison to Captain Kirk, Captain Picard is a superior captain and leader. Great Points! Much thanks and appreciation to Con for taking this debate, after reading his response, I only regret limiting this to only 3 rounds. I think Con has presented some fantastic arguments, in which I hope to address thoroughly. Win or lose, I am very happy to have found a worthy opponent that loves Star Trek. On tactics, Kirk displays some cleverness at best. I will have to revisit, compare and contrast some battles to better combat this claim, and I promise to do so in the next round. I couldn't't help but heavily discuss Khan and Hugh in this round as I feel they are heavy hitting points that need immediate addressing. Khan: First, I feel it worthy to give the admired Captain Kirk his due respect. He defeated Khan Noonien Singh twice. Khan was a genetically engineer superhuman and is amongst the top ten greatest villains of all time. I agree with my opponent in that it would take an extraordinary tactician and leader to defeat Khan. But in comparison to Picard, this does not make Kirk a superior Captain or Leader. Picard bested the mischievous threatening and seemingly omnipotent being know as "Q". Khan is a more recognized villain, but Q is a superior adversary. In the first confrontation with Khan, Con, conveniently ignores a very important fact. Kirk was faced with certain the loss of his ship to Khan or the loss of his life. The ship's historian rescued him and neutralized Khan's subordinates using a neural gas. In the end it was the consistent emotional irrationality of the Marla McGivers that saved the day. Kirk merely bested Khan in hand combat, gave him a quick hearing, and exiled him to an uninhabited planet. A planet in a system where Kirk failed to do the remedial research needed to determine if the system was indeed hospitable. Interestingly but not surprisingly, this event creates the next confrontation between Khan and Kirk. Khan's planet becomes inhospitable due to explosion of the sixth planet in the system. Khan loses his wife and most of his followers because of this. This leads to a series of exciting battles between Kirk and Khan and ends with the unfortunate but noble sacrifice of Spock. Everyone is left with the reassurance the Kirk remains uncontested in both tactics and execution. Such illusions need to be confronted with reason. Upon re examination of the movie we see that it was indeed Spock that deceived Khan thus creating the opportunity for Kirk to defeat Khan. Plus how can we ignore the glaringly obvious point that Khan had almost zero experience with three-dimensional space combat, no crew and no Star Fleet Academy accreditation. And Khan still almost defeats him! I repeat, the Enterprise is the flag ship of the Federation, with the best crew possible in the federation and Khan despite his deficit in knowledge both technological and crew wise, he still came dangerously close in defeating Kirk. Furthermore, Spock repaired the warp drive that enabled them to escape the nebula. What would Kirk have done if Spock was a being of lesser character and morality or simply just fudged the repairs? The obvious result would have been the mutual destruction of Khan, his ship the Reliant, Kirk, the Enterprise and all of its crew. From this, we surmise that Kirk is the superior Captain to Picard because he was able to defeat someone for which he had a disproportionate advantage to, and to which his success was deemed possible by first emotional irrationality of Khan's love interest, and second the quick wit and self sacrifice of his second officer. These are the actions of a superior tactician…Really? Khan is beloved and idolized because of his Shakespearean demise and because he presented the Star Trek audience with a character embodied the same egotism comparable to only that of Captain Kirk. Is it any surprise that people who love Kirk, love Khan as a nemesis to Kirk? Do not the individual and collective enemies of a man reveal the valor of his character? Is not a man defined by how he overcomes conflict? Perhaps I should recant some of the respect I ceded to Kirk at the start of this argument. Q, on the other hand is a near omnipotent deity. He can stop death, create life, travel through time, stop time, create multiple versions of himself, and create entire worlds. He has every conceivable advantage over Picard. He even plunges Picard into alternate realities. Picard successful beats Q using intellect and calculated thinking. What speaks most to Picard's character is that after the multiple confrontations with Q, Q aides Picard in saving the human race. Picard was able to take an enemy, an enemy that boasted superior power and intellect, and convert him into a welcoming ally. Picard earns the respect of his enemy and nemesis, in contrast to Kirk who elicits only vengeance and wrath from his. Perhaps we can say that Kirk destroyed the big God Head at the edge of the galaxy. But really, he just ordered an orbital bombardment on a big floating head. On this merit alone the debate could end here. Picard and Hugh: I will first argue that Kirk has never encountered an opponent like the Borg. I will also state that Picard survived assimilation into a collective hybrid mind as Locutus. Despite an occasional lapse in emotional and imaginative control, he still maintained his psychological faculties (It says something with a race with a collective hybrid mind gives you an individual name). Furthermore, after experiencing the traumatic event being assimilated, he was still capable of imparting mercy and compassion against his enemy, (a far cry from Kirk). Con cites this as a reason to show inferiority, but he ignores Picard's reasoning, (Which I might add makes Picard so great, he possessed a sense of reasoning that was self evident, no Spock needed). Picard spared Hugh and the Borg because he first realized that Hugh was an individual. But most importantly he understood that genocide was wrong. Con would lead us to believe that Picard lacked superior moral and intellectual reasoning because Picard believes that exterminating an entire race of sentient beings is wrong. Furthermore, Picard is not the only captain to recognize this. Captain Janeway made a similar decision when she saved the Borg from Species 8472. From this we can conclude that either Picard set the moral standard for the Federation or was in coherence with it by virtue of his actions. Picard assisted in making First Contact, thus making the Star Trek universe a reality to begin with. Was it not Picard that ventured into the Nexus to rescue Kirk from a fake reality? I cannot think of a more powerful example of superiority than this. Picard was able to realize the illusion, his reasonable and intellectual capabilities overcame self delusion. Whereas Kirk wanted a continuous existence in dream like reality, this is the mind of superior Captain? How many years was he in the Nexus? Let's compare that to how long it took Picard to snap out of it. I find this not too far from the Kirk when analyzing Kirk's mental landscape, he is a delusional but entertaining Captain. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://memory-alpha.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(Star_Trek) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://memory-alpha.org... |
49 | e871f8e7-2019-04-18T12:44:35Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | The police should be privatized Then three rounds for debate. Resolved: The police should be privatized. I will argue in the affirmative. Good luck. |
32 | 5dd7f198-2019-04-18T15:43:08Z-00000-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Stop voting incumbent I disagree. You base your claims on the logic that because your idea is different, it will be better. You don't know if it will work, ad you have not tried to get any data. It is ridiculous that you would assume so. I believe I have clearly demonstrated your failure to fulfill you burden of proof, and thus I rest my case. |
6 | 3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second "rebuttal" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: "I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says "studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So |
9 | 9084bde3-2019-04-18T17:31:55Z-00001-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms "Forfeit will result in an auto loss and all 7 points going to the other person." |
17 | fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue. |
50 | dca59d58-2019-04-18T20:00:21Z-00005-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | minimum wage should exist i am for a minimum wage. i am not arguing a specifc amount, just that it be a reasonable amount a single person can live off of reasonably. we're only debating whether it should exist or not, not how much. i am responding to common objection to the wage from the get go. anywhere i look anyone can get a job for minimum wage if they have their bits together. the only people i know, from experience only which might not be accurate i concede, who can't get a job at minimum wage are the dim wit slacker type. so, no one is being denied a job because of the wage, really. maybe the low wits are being denied 3.50 jobs, i'm not sure, but i doubt we should worry about that too much. i say 3.50 jobs, because that's what the wages would go to without the minimum. to prove this, all we need to do is look back to the 80s. back then, the minimum by law was 3.50. and you can bet people were being paid that much at mcdonald's too. what did increasing it do? it simply caused the people who were paid much less than they shold have to be paid more. so, i think the notion is empiraclly proven wrong that economics will cause the wage to increase, if only we'd ban the minimum, because it hangs around at the minimum, stopping it from going lower. if it were still 3.50 today, that's what people would be paid. and yes, i agree, workers don't stay at exactly 3.50 for long but increase with experience, but they do stay in that low territory for long. so you can't argue it's only temporary. they can work their way up to better jobs, sometimes but not always. whatever the case, they should get a fairer wage whether temporary or long lasting. most places like mcdonald's and other sterotypical places can afford it, and make enough to pay a fairer wage, so they should. also, i'd be open to allowing categorical exclusions or something for people who pick dandelions for others or somehting. they shouldn't be paid minimum wage. most jobs should though, mcdonald's etc. if you can't afford to pay a decent wage, you sholdnt be in business. we're always denying someone the opportunity to hire for beans but that doesn't mean we should just ban the minimum wage. it's like denying indians the right to land: as a practical matter we have to have laws that prevent them from land, but we should recognize how our laws infringe, and act accordingly. with indians, and here. or, imagine a primitive world where a man has all the land taken up by the laws of man, and using technology to claim it like in farming etc: a family wanting to branch off can't because of the law of man, the law of God says they can. it's not stealing, it's fixing the fact the family has the right to take what God has given everyone but laws prevent it and keep things civil. these analogies are happening today, as we prevent people access to the natural world, which is a right. we have to recognize how laws infringe and act accordingly, if not by ging land, then by something else, to be reasonable and not partition everything absurdly. also, even if some places pay more than minimum doesn't mean we shouldn't have the minimum, as has been suggested. if it's not being used, hten great. if it is, then that's when it matters and the law should exist. also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum. |
4 | c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance. |
10 | 8319c6c-2019-04-18T14:13:06Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Pro's position is that vaccines should be compulsory for everyone except immunocompromised people. I will not be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory (I take no position on that issue here). Rather, I will be arguing that Pro's exception fails to exempt people with legitimate excuses. For this reason, Pro's position should be rejected. Pro's exception fails to exempt people who have a contraindication for a particular vaccine. In medicine, a contraindication is "something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable". [1 - http://goo.gl... ] For example, gastrointestinal problems are a contraindication for aspirin [2 - http://goo.gl... ], as "aspirin causes gastrointestinal bleeding". [3 - http://goo.gl... ] There are many different vaccines, and each vaccine has a specific list of contraindications and precautions. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] According to the CDC, contraindications for vaccines include severe allergic reactions after a previous dose to a vaccine component, pregnancy, intussusception, severe immunodeficiency, encephalopathy, etc. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] If we were to adopt Pro's proposal, then we would be subjecting people to compulsory vaccination even though these vaccines would be injurious to their health. That's not a good idea. Sources: 1 - Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary - Entry for Contraindication - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 - WebMD - Contraindications for Aspirin - http://www.webmd.com... 3 - American Heart Association - Article on Aspirin - http://circ.ahajournals.org... 4 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Chart of Contraindications and Precautions to Commonly Used Vaccines For Childhood Vaccines - http://www.cdc.gov... 5 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Vaccine Contraindications and Precautions for ADULTS Only - http://www.cdc.gov... |
27 | da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00007-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control (Copy #2) I am for more Gun Control laws and policies in America. My opponent must be opposed to any further Gun Control laws being established in America. |
2 | 3c53b33f-2019-04-18T15:23:42Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | "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) |
3 | 3e59e3f6-2019-04-18T18:06:10Z-00005-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | should child labor be allowed so is most of the US Federal Gov't hence why they made child labor laws. these child labor laws states that Teens hired for nonagricultural employment (which is just about everything other than farm work) must be at least fourteen. Other child labor law restrictions, regulating the type of positions young workers can hold and the type of work they can do are also in effect. 18 Years of Age Once a youth reaches 18 years of age, he or she is no longer subject to the federal youth employment and child labor law provisions. 16 and 17 Years of Age Sixteen- and 17-year-olds may be employed for unlimited hours in any occupation other than those declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Examples of equipment declared hazardous in food service establishments include power-driven meat processing machines (meat slicers, saws, patty forming machines, grinders, or choppers), commercial mixers and certain power-driven bakery machines. 14 and 15 Years of Age During the school year, hours are limited to 3 hours a day and 18 hours a week. On days when there's no school and in the summer, working hours increase to 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. There are limits on when children can work, too - no later than 7 p. m. during the school year and no later than 9 p. m. between June 1 and Labor Day. Fourteen- and 15- year-olds may be employed in restaurants and quick-service establishments outside school hours in a variety of jobs for limited periods of time and under specified conditions. Jobs Exempt from Child Labor Law Regulations In general, children of any age are permitted to work for businesses entirely owned by their parents, except those under 16 may not be employed in mining or manufacturing and no one under 18 may be employed in any occupation the Secretary of Labor has declared to be hazardous. Minors employed in the delivery of newspapers to consumers are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) child labor provisions, as well as the wage and hours provisions. Children employed as actors or performers in motion pictures or theatrical productions, or in radio or television productions are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) coverage. Therefore, FLSA rules regarding total allowable number of work hours in one day and allowable times of day to work do not apply. There are other exemptions, including making evergreen wreaths at home, so, check the DOL Exemptions from Child Labor Law Rules for the full list. Child Labor Regulation Changes Youth Minimum Wage The law allows employers to pay employees under 20 years of age a lower wage for a limited period (90 calendar days, not work days) after they are first employed. Any wage rate above the $4.25 minimum wage for youth an hour may be paid to eligible workers during this 90-day period. . http://jobsearch.about.com... |
10 | f9d1c524-2019-04-18T15:02:19Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines Cause Autism I'd like to define vaccine. [All definitions are from oxford dictionaries]VaccineA substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseasesThroughout history, vaccines have been the best method against preventing disease. There are many diseases that were rampant in the past, but they have been erradicated or are close to erradication thanks to vaccination. These diseases include - Polio Smallpox Measles Tetanus These diseases, had they still been common, would've been killing hundreds of thousands of people today. Many people believe that vaccines cause autism. This belief was strengthened after a scientific paper released in 1998 by former medical researcher, Andrew Wakefield. This paper was published in the medical journal The Lancet. It was later revealed that Wakefield had manipulated evidence, and had many conflicts of interest. In 2004, this paper was partially retracted, and was fully retracted in 2010. The Lancet's editor-in-chief called it "utterly false. " Wakefield was found guilty of professional misconduct, and he is no longer allowed to practice medicine. The scientific community agrees that no evidence links autism and vaccination. Research has gone into what causes autism, and a few interesting things have been found. Autism has a genetic component, but there is more. In siblings that both have autism, the genetic risk factors aren't the same. There hasn't even been any real evidence to fully explain why autism occurs, so it's senseless to suddenly blame it on vaccines. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.bmj.com... . http://www.healthline.com... . http://www.unicef.org... . http://www.dailyrx.com... . http://www.nature.com... . http://www.healthline.com... |
11 | 9324770-2019-04-18T19:59:00Z-00000-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | gay marriage should be accepted The proponent unfortunately did not defend her position, which makes it more difficult for me, and any observers to challenge and refine my/their opinions. I have nothing more to add. |
28 | 87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00093-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Legal prostitution increases rates of rape Prostitution is an industry inherently vulnerable to rape. Legalization may increase demand for prostitution, and thus expand an industry with inherent risks of rape. This is likely to increase the rate of rape. |
14 | 1d0c6377-2019-04-18T19:55:34Z-00005-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Abortion Is Not Birth Control. Though I agree with Abortion I do not agree that it should be used as a form of birth control. If some idiot teenager forgets to use a condom they should not have the option of abortion. They can keep it or give it away. Now if a woman is raped or there are special circumstances then it should be an option. I know I am straddling the fence on this issue but this is how I see it. I believe in using abortion responsibly. Every life is precious so we should be thoughtful of how we treat it. |
19 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
40 | 33caf0a6-2019-04-18T18:21:33Z-00003-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty is morally impermissible "By giving the criminal the death penalty, we deter future criminals, reducing the crime rate."According to studies, the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. [1] The opponent bears the burden of proving that it is, indeed, an effective deterrent. Otherwise, the argument is null. Also, if these criminals were allowed to return to society, they would pose the risk of threatening more people, therefore under the util framework the death penalty would be permissible."Life-time imprisonment does not allow criminals back into society, also. ---The ultimate question is not whether or not a criminal deserves to die, but rather: Should the federal government be allowed to kill those whom it finds culpable? What suggests that the federal government, or, to be more specific, a representative of the government (i.e. a judge, who imposes the sentence) should be the arbitrator of life and death? There is no objective standard for the judge to go by, so the results of one trial can vary from one case to another; on both extremes of the spectrum, one judge may give a lenient jail sentence, while the other can impose the death sentence. What logically justifies the concept that the government should be the ultimate arbitrator of life and death?Than you.[1] http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org... |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00015-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution |
49 | dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00000-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime," states the policy. It adds that, "(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties." http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI"ll keep this short. There isn"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven"t won because I"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such)."I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate."I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera."This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. "This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters. |
1 | 5cfdd422-2019-04-18T12:19:47Z-00000-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired I would like to first draw attention to the fact that the wording of the motion is a case of scopal ambiguity*: "Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired" ^^This could mean either that we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 90%, or we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 10%. I feel I can argue against either, hence I have accepted nonetheless, but I feel I should point out that the motion is ambiguously defined, and that traditionally is considered to work in con's favour. Regardless, it will allow the debate to progress more smoothly for pro to clarify what they meant at the start of their R2 speech. My argument will be as follows: 1) An absent teacher does not usually damage a student's education. 2) There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a teacher may need to be absent for over a year (i.e. would have 0% attendance) but should not be fired. Firstly, most schools have systems in place to account for the event that a teacher is absent- they have supply teachers whose entire job is to cover for teachers who are absent. Though not clearly stated, pro appears to be talking about secondary/elementary schools, and a supply teacher can teach, for instance, how to solve a quadratic equation, just as easily as the full-time teacher could. It therefore does not harm the students' education. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons why a teacher may not be able to attend school for over a year. For instance, if they are diagnosed with cancer, and have to undergo a year of chemotherapy, and hence have to take a year out. This person should not be fired for being in that situation, and pro did not include any indication in the motion that exceptions may be made if the teacher has a perfectly good reason for being absent. Maternity leave is a much less drastic example- the school year is 36 weeks**, which would make being absent for four of them enough to push one under the boundary pro proposed. After giving birth, one is entitled to up to 52 weeks*** maternity leave. So, in short, an absent teacher is not as damaging to students' education as pro suggests, and there are perfectly valid reasons a teacher may be unable to attend for up to a year. As such, I urge voters to side against the motion. *(An explanation of scopal ambiguity: from 1min 15secs). **(According to: https://www.google.co.uk...;*) ***(According to https://www.google.co.uk...;*) |
2 | 47b5d38-2019-04-18T14:19:43Z-00008-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | The Rise of China is Safe and Peaceful 'I believe that the rise of China is peaceful and should not be feared off.'Hi! HoKiaJunn,You believe what you like. I recognize China for what it is. China is a 'superpower' on the world stage. China has little regard for it's citizens or its environment. China is owed money by 'absolutely everyone'. It is the Shylock of global finance and it will attempt to extract it's pound of flesh. Ethnic minorities are suffocated beneath this monolith. China has an extensive nuclear arsenal that it updates in order to keep pigeons off it's rice crops. Most Chinese people that I have encountered are honest, hard working and peaceful . They are friendly and compliant but that is not what we are talking about here. We are discussing 'China', the political entity that is. Make a case for them if you can. Good Luck |
4 | 139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00006-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children I thank ScarletGhost for the challenge, and gladly accept. I will be taking the con position, defending the use of corporal punishment, as defined below, by parents. In debate, it is important to have definitions and rules to properly outline the position taken by the participants, and how the debate will be conducted. Since none were provided, I'd like to offer the following definitions and rules. DefinitionsCorporal punishment: Spanking on the rear, or smacking the hand or behind of a child. A non-abusive punishment used by parents, designed to correct harmful behaviors in children who refuse, or are not able to process, logical commands (i. e. Don't stick your fingers in a light socket). Children: Youths, ages 0-18. Child-rearing: Parenting; providing a nurturing and constructive environment that promotes growth and development in a child or children. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...RulesVideos may be used, provided that enough commentary is provided to explain the purpose, and relevance to the argument. Videos are not mandatory, and neither participant should be penalized for not using a video. The final round will be used for rebuttal and summation only. No new arguments will be introduced. A forfeit of any round equals a forfeit of the debate. |
6 | 33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00003-000 | Is a college education worth it? | The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits My opponent and I have decided to forgo this round on the account that I am ill with food poisoning.Thank you. |
15 | 7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00006-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals should be used for testing Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard. https://www.neavs.org... |
8 | 6702c8de-2019-04-18T12:13:43Z-00001-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal The "Unborn Victims Act" designates unborn children as human beings with a clear right to life. According to the The National Right to Life Organization, the "Unborn Victims Act" does not include abortion as a legally punishable act as a compromise, so it could become law. However, the law does legally recognize unborn children as legal human being with rights, so this sets a legal precedent for the legal right to life debates. If a fetus can, in fact, have a crime committed against it, and is seen as a legal human being, it gives credence to the argument that mothers shouldn't have the right to kill a child just because it hasn't been given birth to yet. The argument that women do not have to use birth control methods just because they don't like it is absurd and the argument that women may not feel comfortable using these methods, but are comfortable with getting an abortion may be even more absurd. A woman not only has the ability to use birth control methods if she can not support a child, she has a duty to use these birth control methods. There are many birth control methods which I listed which in no way shape or form affect hormones. The best way to stop a problem is prevention, and if prevention methods are used, abortion is unnecessary. Finally, the Hippocratic Oath is still a mandatory oath which doctors must take. The oath specifically prohibits the unnecessary harm of human beings. If a baby is not threatening the safety of a woman, the abortion is not necessary and many other approaches can be taken towards the child. Such as government financial support, other forms of support, and giving the child up for adoption is also an option. |
34 | ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00003-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. First of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. "Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. "Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, "potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result." This is the fault of the individual and not the site. |
22 | f1083ec0-2019-04-18T18:06:09Z-00005-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Current U.S. foreign policy undermines our national security. The November Public Forum topic has been announced and it is: Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security. Today, we"ll be discussing the "pro" side of this complex issue in depth. Initially note that "current" U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East policy is highly varied " unlike during the Bush era, Obama has eschewed a one-size-fits-all policy in favor of a mixture of traditionally "hardline" and "softline" measures. For this reason, the pro has a litany of options for criticizing these policies from a variety of angles. We"ll begin with the "too hardline" arguments, move to the "too softline" arguments, and finally discuss specific criticisms at the end. In the most general sense, Glenn Greenwald explains the ways in which Obama"s "hawkish" policies are damaging to national security: Glenn Greenwald, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 23, 2012. President Obama's achievements and setbacks can be roughly understood as ones of means and ends, respectively. When it comes to pursuit of his foreign-policy aims, he has proven himself a far shrewder and more efficient technocratic manager than his predecessor. He has used diplomacy and covert sabotage to effectively isolate Iran, managed alliances to overthrow Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, executed ruthless attacks to weaken al Qaeda, consolidated the power to wage wars and to detain and kill without congressional (or judicial) interference, strengthened ties with key allies in the Middle East (including Israel), and has generally been much smarter and more subtle than George W. Bush about using American power against the nation's perceived enemies and on behalf of its allies. But the goals to which that shrewdness has been applied have been extremely ill-advised. A core promise of the Obama presidency -- to improve America's standing in the world -- has been thwarted, as the nation is now viewed as unfavorably in the Muslim world, if not more so, as it was during the Bush years. Obama's steadfast support for Arab dictators, his ongoing subservience to the Israeli government, and his penchant for violence, aggression, and civilian slaughter in that region are the culprits. The war in Afghanistan, which he escalated, remains a disaster. Serious tensions with Pakistan -- which even Bush was smart enough to avoid -- are more dangerous than ever; along with the collapse of any prospects for an Israeli/Palestinian peace agreement, that is probably his worst foreign-policy failure. One achievement commonly credited to Obama -- the ending of the Iraq War -- was actually negotiated by Bush and forced on Obama by his failure to convince the Iraqis to let U.S. forces remain, and thus does not belong in the success category. In sum, Obama has deftly and intelligently pursued ignominious and ignoble foreign-policy goals. Here, Greenwald is criticizing several Obama policies: 1. Support for dictators in the Middle East (including those deposed during the Arab Spring, even though he pivoted toward supporting the protesters as it became clearer that they were going to emerge victorious). 2. Close ties to Israel and insistence on concessions that doomed the peace process. 3. Surges in Afghanistan. 4. Drone strikes and other military activity in Pakistan. The warrant for all these arguments is just that Obama is doing things that breed resentment in the Arab world. That resentment can become a catalyst for extremist hatred of the United States and thus is not in the best national security interest. Civilian casualties resulting from US counter-terrorism in the region are arguably rallying points for terrorist recruitment and lack of cooperation between Middle Eastern governments and the United States. One of the clearest examples (mentioned above but discussed here in more detail) is Obama"s embrace of drone strikes as a primary counter-terrorism strategy: Allison Good, "Middle East experts urge changes to Obama"s Yemen policies," Foreign Policy, June 27, 2012. A group of 27 foreign policy, security, and Middle East experts sent a letter to " Obama on this week criticizing the administration's counterterrorism-focused approach to Yemen and urging " "achieving a successful democratic transition" " Although the United States has "drastically increased the number of drone strikes" against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) " this strategy "jeopardizes our long-term national security goals." A comprehensive focus on Yemen's economic and political problems, it continues, "will better serve the stability of Yemen and, accordingly, our national security interests, rather than ... direct military involvement." The letter, spearheaded by the Yemen Policy Initiative, a dialogue organized by the Atlantic Council and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), outlines several diplomatic, political, economic, humanitarian, and security policy recommendations that include increasing assistance to democracy-building institutions, working with the international community to immediately address Yemen's "food security needs," sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Yemeni capital Sanaa, and rethinking the strategy of drone strikes, which the signatories argue "could strengthen the appeal of extremist groups." The recruitment argument appears again here. The drones debate is, obviously, widely varied and very in-depth but much of it boils down to the possibility of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes and the culture of fear drone patrols create. Seeing the U.S. as uncaring and as responsible for the deaths of innocents, people adopt radical revenge ideologies, perpetuating terrorism. There are also some sticky due process issues associated with drones that could create bad precedents for international law and domestically. Anne-Marie Slaughter explains: Anne-Marie Slaughter, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," January 23, 2012. Finally, for all of Obama's success using drones, the ultimate light, nimble and adaptable weapon, many of the precedents the United States setting with drone attacks will come back to haunt us. Now is the time to begin to develop an international consensus around rules governing drones and other means of individualized 21st-century warfare. Exulting in victory over the killing of individual terrorist suspects may feel good, but this is precisely the issue on which we need less celebration and more of the cool, cerebral analysis that the president is known for. Aside from just radicalizing the Middle East, the murky legal doctrines governing drone use (and the seeming lack of caring on the part of the American public about the impacts of this legal gray area) open the U.S. to significant international criticism, undermining soft power. Soft power is arguably indispensable for maintaining U.S. influence abroad and for fostering international consensus on issues that affect our national security. Much more could be said, of course, about Obama"s drone strikes policies. If you"d like to delve more deeply into this aspect of the resolution, check out the targeted killings analysis we did for the March/April topic last year. You can find it here: http://debate-central.ncpa.org... As I previously mentioned, however, there are as many, if not more, criticisms of the Obama administration as "too softline." Obama"s foreign policy approach, despite how definitive it is on terror, is often criticized for failing to take a clear stance on other Middle East issues. Mike Brownfield explains: Mike Brownfield, "Morning Bell: Middle East Crumbles Around Obama Foreign Policy," Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, February 8, 2012 The international rogue that is Iran continues to rise, along with its threat to the world. Thousands are dead in Syria under a brutal dictator while the international community is serving up effete condemnations. America"s ally Israel appears ready to take matters into its own hands in order to ensure its survival, while prospects for peace with Palestine remain dim. U.S. citizens are trapped in Egypt as anti-Western Islamists seek to consolidate their power. And Iraq"s once-peaceful prospects have been marred by one terrorist attack after another after America"s military forces departed. Obama has failed at every turn to safeguard U.S. interests in the region or take effective proactive initiatives to deal with threat of rising extremism and spiraling violence that could lead to regional conflict. In other words, current U.S. foreign policy can be characterized as reactive versus proactive. The wait-and-see approach Obama has taken on Syria, Israel-Iran conflict, and Iraq arguably run the risk that, if the United States is forced by circumstance to clarify its policy on either, it will be too late to truly shape the outcome. This can be potentially dangerous, especially as conflicts, once they go from cold to hot, are difficult to de-escalate or deter. Michael Singh elaborates: Michael Singh, "It"s not just the sparks that caused this fire in the Middle East," Foreign Policy, September 18, 2012. At such a pivotal moment, it is important that we correctly understand what is happening and why, and mount the appropriate policy response. We must in particular avoid the temptation " to disengage with the Middle East in frustration over the persistence of anti-Americanism and chaos there. The Middle East remains a region which is vital to U.S. interests " Since the beginning of the Arab uprisings, the Obama administration has adopted a passive, hesitant approach to events, conveying the sense that America is increasingly disengaged, indifferent, or both when it comes to the Middle East. This can be seen in the disconnect between rhetoric and action on Syria, diffidence in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, "leading from behind" in Libya, and even in the talk of a "pivot" to Asia in our foreign policy. The result has been a diminution rather than an enhancement in both U.S. influence and -- despite strenuous efforts to avoid disputes with new governments in the region -- our popularity. Going forward, the United States should not lose our hope for a positive future in the Middle East or confidence in our own ability to shape outcomes there. However, we should be clear-eyed about the challenges that we face and the long timetable which lies before us to accomplish what we set out to achieve. Foreign policy has three fundamental objectives -- to promote American security, prosperity, and to advance U.S. values. This should be the starting point for successful policy in the region -- firmly and unapologetically advocate our interests, help governments to reform politically and economically, and support and work with parties within and without the region who share our interests and values. This is a common criticism of Obama"s response to the Arab Spring. Many analysts believe that his refusal to advocate for American interests throughout the transitional period and reluctance to shape the outcomes has caused a serious dip in the U.S."s influence and popularity with burgeoning governments that perceive abandonment and indifference. Jeffrey Goldberg, quoting Shadi Hamid from Brookings, clarifies the impact of perceived indifference: Jeffrey Goldberg, "Hunt for Obama"s Middle East Policy Comes Up Empty,"Bloomberg, October 1, 2012. Yet all we have from Obama is passivity, which is a recurring theme in the administration"s approach to the Middle East. So is "aggressive hedging," a term used by the Brookings Institution"s Shadi Hamid to describe Obama"s strange reluctance to clearly choose sides in the uprisings of the Arab Spring. "There"s a widespread perception in the region that Obama is a weak, somewhat feckless president," Hamid, who runs the Brookings Doha Center, told me. "Bush may have been hated, but he was also feared, and what we"ve learned in the Middle East is that fear, sometimes at least, can be a good thing. Obama"s aggressive hedging has alienated both sides of the Arab divide. Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite." Leaders across the Middle East don"t take Obama"s threats seriously. Neither Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor the Arab leaders of the Gulf countries believe he"ll act militarily against Iran"s nuclear program in his second term. This is perhaps the clearest explanation of the case against Obama"s hedging: that he"s essentially produced the worst of all worlds. By failing to take a side or many any particular demands, he alienates both sides of the conflict and guts the credibility of any threats because they aren"t backed up with action. In short, Obama"s policy potentially short-circuits U.S. influence in the Middle East at a time when we potentially need it the most. Jamie M. Fly discusses some concrete impacts to this claim: Jamie M. Fly, "Obama is Unwilling to Lead the U.S. Response to the Arab Spring," U.S. News and World Report, September 27, 2012 This was even more apparent in the revolutions that evolved into civil wars. In Libya, after some initial reluctance to get involved, the president pivoted and authorized a military effort to protect civilians that eventually led to the demise of Muammar Qadhafi. The administration's desire to overlearn the lessons of Iraq led to a hands off approach to postconflict Libya. The nascent Libyan government was essentially left on its own, with little assistance to rein in the militias and weapons proliferation that came as a result of NATO's air operation and the president's refusal to put boots on the ground. In Syria, the United States has stood by as tens of thousands have been killed, not willing to back up President Obama's demands that Bashar al-Assad step down with American action. The common thread that weaves together the U.S. response to the Arab Spring has thus been unwillingness by the Obama administration to assertively lead. The people of the region, from the streets to the halls of power, have far too often been left to question America's commitment to their cause and to wonder what U.S. policy is toward their countries. This has created a vacuum in which other actors have attempted to fill the void, often in ways that do not comport with U.S. interests. It also has weakened America's standing in the region and in the broader world and created costs that the United States will likely have to deal with for years to come. As one Syrian near the besieged city of Aleppo told The Washington Post in August, "America will pay a price for this. America is going to lose the friendship of Syrians, and no one will trust them anymore. Already we don't trust them at all." Thus, the "hands-off" approach created an uncomfortable middle ground where the U.S. did enough to involve itself but not quite enough to ensure that involvement promoted American security interests in the region. Worse, other actors have taken advantage of this lukewarm stance and attempted to shape the conflict (Turkey and Russia in Syria, for example) in such ways as may damage U.S. interests. For a more in-depth discussion of a similar argument, see: Michael Rubin, "Obama Speaks Often But Does Little on Mideast Foreign Policy," US News and World Report, September 27, 2012. For a more robust analysis of this argument applied to Iraq and Afghanistan, see: Jamie Fly, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 23, 2012. Although we"ve touched on these already, this "soft" Middle East policy"s detractors discuss some specific scenarios that might be worth considering as contentions. One of the timeliest is Syria, where Bashar al-Assad, the besieged president, is using large-scale violence to maintain a tenuous hold on power in the face of rebel opposition. Jeffrey Goldberg explains: Jeffrey Goldberg, "Hunt for Obama"s Middle East Policy Comes Up Empty," Bloomberg, October 1, 2012. Which brings me to the baffling subject of Syria. Like many observers of the Obama administration, I"ve been confused by its unwillingness to take even the relatively modest steps required to bring about a decisive end to the regime of Bashar al-Assad. More than 30,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the uprising " and untold numbers have been wounded, tortured or raped. The Syrians who are rebelling are in dire need of the sort of support that the U.S. can best provide. The U.S. has the capability to efficiently neutralize Syria"s air defenses and impose a no-fly zone to ground Assad"s attack helicopters. And as Michael Doran and Max Boot pointed out " only the U.S. can lead a multinational effort to establish safe corridors between the Turkish border and the besieged city of Aleppo. If Aleppo was under the stable and permanent control of Syria"s rebels, it would spell the end of Assad"s regime and its appalling brutality. " In Syria, the national-security interests are profound. ... Assad is a prime supporter of terrorism " and his regime represents Iran"s only meaningful Arab ally. The overriding concern of the Obama administration in the Middle East is the defanging of Iran. Nothing would isolate Iran -- and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah -- more than the removal of the Assad regime and its replacement by a government drawn from Syria"s Sunni majority. Ensuring that Muslim extremists don"t dominate the next Syrian government is another compelling reason to increase U.S. involvement. Thus, the disengaged stance on Syria allows: 1. Human rights abuses on a massive scale. 2. Terrorist safe havens supported by Assad. 3. Isolation of Iran. 4. The new government to be indifferent or hostile to the United States. The second is Egypt. Egypt, recently in political transition after Arab Spring protests led to the ouster of dictator Hosni Mubarak, is beginning a shaky transition under the new president, Mohamed Morsi. Recent protests (ostensibly in response to an American-made fringe film insulting the Muslim prophet) initially received only a lukewarm condemnation from Morsi despite potentially endangering U.S. embassy personnel. Mike Brownfield elaborates on the importance of handling this situation decisively: Mike Brownfield, "Morning Bell: Middle East Crumbles Around Obama Foreign Policy," Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, February 8, 2012 Finally, in Egypt, officials there published a list of 43 people, including 19 Americans, accused of interfering in Egypt"s internal politics. They are not allowed to leave the country and could soon be brought to trial on claims that they illegally funded political groups in Egypt"s parliamentary elections. Heritage"s James Phillips explains that "they have become hostages in a much larger struggle: the struggle for freedom in Egypt against an unholy alliance between Egypt"s transitional military government and the Islamist political parties who will soon assume power." President Obama and members of his Cabinet tried to reach Egyptian leaders on the matter, but in the words of Lorne Craner, head of the pro-democracy organization IRI, "things are getting worse . . . We are all scratching our heads over here. I did two tours at State and one at the [National Security Council]. If the president called someone, something gets worked out." But as was the case under President Jimmy Carter, the White House appears helpless while Americans are held captive. None of these crises occurs in a vacuum " except for the vacuum of a cogent U.S. strategy for dealing with these ever-worsening conditions. Since President Obama took office, he has pursued a diplomatic strategy of charm and restraint: attempting to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, engaging with Syria and Iran, and withdrawing from Iraq. Now we are seeing the results. Egypt is important strategically as well " it"s one of the largest Middle Eastern countries and has historically been situated in a geographically and politically important position for brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace and tamping down North African radicals. A loss of Egypt could be devastating for U.S. influence, particularly because they"ve always been an ally in the region and may cease to be without quick, decisive action. The third is Libya. In Libya, dictator Moammar Qaddafi was recently ousted (and killed) by pro-democracy militias. The U.S. took part in a NATO air campaign (led by France) to secure Libya so that Qaddafi"s violent attempts to stay in power wouldn"t escalate out of control. Recently, Libyan militias (potentially taking part in a wider protest about the aforementioned American film and potentially participating in a coordinated Al Qaeda attack) attacked a U.S. embassy resulting in the deaths of American personnel. Notably, this attack resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, one of the first U.S. ambassadors killed abroad in a very long time. Richard Cohen explains how current U.S. policy is creating a dangerous spiral in Libya: Richard Cohen, "The Price of Obama"s Leading From Behind," The Washington Post, September 17, 2012. What lessons can be learned from events in Libya? That nothing good will come out of the Arab Spring? " In other words, is this what happens when the United States is "leading from behind"? This phrase, you might remember, was coined in reference to Barack Obama"s reluctance to take the lead in the NATO air campaign that toppled the dictatorship of Moammar Gaddafi. And that operation, in which the French seized the initiative, was mounted to save Benghazi, the city where the insurrection started and the one where U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed last week. Benghazi was saved from Gaddafi"s bloody reprisals, but not from mayhem. The notion that the United States can lead from behind is pitiful, the sorry concoction of an Obama administration that mistakes dulcet passivity for a foreign policy. The view from behind now has to be awfully depressing. Where once Obama could see the gallant tails of the French, the British, the Italians and some others, there is now no one. ... NATO"s warplanes have returned to base and Libya, a tribal society, was left to fend for itself. It has not fended all that well. Until recent events offered a rebuke, the Obama administration treated its toe-in-the-water response to the threats uttered by Gaddafi as an unalloyed success. The dictator had been ousted (and subsequently killed), no Americans had died in the effort and the wisdom of doing as little as possible was proclaimed a sterling triumph. Had the United States taken the lead, however, someone might have been paying more attention to events there and trying to forge a government out of heavily armed militias. After all, it"s not as if all of Libya was sacking the U.S. legation; it was a well-armed few. Much of the rest of the country was appalled by what happened and the president of the national congress, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, offered an apology and vowed to find the terrorists and, as always, bring them to justice. That is, the strategy of leading behind has a major flaw: it"s impossible to then take over after the fact. Moreover, abdicating responsibility to shape and rebuild post-conflict Libya allows radicalized minority factions (and potentially terrorist groups) to take advantage of weak rule of law in Libya. This could be potentially disastrous " allowing Libya to become a safe haven for groups wishing to inflict serious harm on the U.S. and its allies would be a difficult problem to contain and, more importantly, one that could have potentially been avoided. There are other criticisms, of course " U.S. policy has been criticized as either too supportive or not supportive enough of Israel versus Iran and the peace process. These criticisms are largely addressed above but are not currently quite as timely as those of the Arab Spring. Finally, as a midpoint between "softline" and "hardline" criticisms, there"s a decidedly more moixed view. Danielle Pletka explains: Danielle Pletka, "Grading Obama"s Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 23, 2012. Any short analysis of Barack Obama's successes and failures in foreign policy must necessarily be incomplete. Is it enough to weigh his undeniable good judgment in ordering Navy SEALS to take out Osama bin Laden against his vacillation when faced with the Arab Spring? His willingness to face reality vis-"-vis Iran versus his paralyzing missteps in promoting Israeli-Palestinian dialogue? Surely not. But at the heart of what must, by the standards the president set for himself, be judged a failure, is what seems to be Obama's worst sin: The president's foreign policy lacks a guiding set of principles. Why surge troops into Afghanistan only to draw them down before the mission is complete? Why condemn Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya for his crimes against his own people and remain almost indifferent to the same crimes when committed by Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Why knock off a dozen al Qaeda terrorists from the air, and release another group from Guant"namo? The answer, of course, is politics. Politics matters to any sane politician; but when politics suffers no competition from principle, the nation's foreign policy is rudderless. It is why our allies mistrust us, our adversaries underestimate us, and why we no longer seek to shape a better world, but instead to retreat from it. The bifurcated, dual nature of current U.S. policy is in and of itself a criticism. The idea that Obama has been too passive in some areas and too aggressive in others indicates that there is no guiding set of principles over current U.S. foreign policy. This approach leaves the U.S. open to international criticism and fails to provide a robust deterrent to those who would threaten our interests. Why, then, does any of this matter? We"ll end with a Jeffrey Goldberg quote that summarizes the strategic importance of the Middle East to national security in the United States: Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Middle East: Goodbye to All That," Bloomberg Businessweek, September 5, 2012. It"s inarguable that Asia is crucial to America"s economic future. "China already represents the most important national security issue we face," says R. Nicholas Burns, a former under secretary of state for political affairs. Yet Burns, like others, regrets the Obama team"s use of the term "pivot," which "implies a turn away, that we were going to leave NATO and Europe and our Middle East allies behind." The U.S., however, has turned away. The Obama administration has put no emphasis on Mideast peacemaking; America"s allies in the region see its position on Iran"s nuclear ambitions as ambiguous; and in Afghanistan, the administration is looking for the exit at a hurried pace. Obama "led from behind" in Libya and has resisted calls to push more actively for the ouster of Syria"s Bashar al-Assad. This effort to de-emphasize the region represents a significant departure in U.S. strategy, according to Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution. "After the entire collapse of international order and security 70 years ago, the way we established order and security was to take responsibility for three regions"Asia, Europe, and the Middle East," Kagan says. "That is what the definition of a superpower is. We consciously adopted a global role." And that"s why the U.S."s current retreat from the Mideast will only be temporary"which is a good thing. America has at least four core interests across the greater Middle East, and each one requires constant monitoring and a readiness to intervene. The first is energy. The notion that America will ever be truly energy-independent is chimerical. Even if the U.S. soon manages to produce all the fossil fuel energy it needs for itself, the world economy would be devastated if South Korea, Japan, and China were suddenly cut off from Mideast oil. So the U.S. will need to continue safeguarding the security of the Persian Gulf, barring one unlikely development: "The only thing that could change this would be burden-sharing with China with respect to keeping open the Strait of Hormuz," says Andrew Exum, a Middle East expert at the Center for a New American Security. "When you see Chinese ships protecting trade routes through the Strait, maybe we can stop worrying as much." The second interest is the security of Israel. "There are broad domestic constituencies for support for Israel, and no politician can ignore that," Exum says. Nothing on the horizon suggests that America will be radically scaling back its relationship with Israel. Quite the opposite: Next year could be the year the crisis over Iran"s nuclear program reaches a boiling point (if it doesn"t before November). Which brings us to the third concern: nuclear proliferation. Israel is a nuclear power; Iran is seeking to become a nuclear power; and Pakistan, at the edge of the greater Middle East, is a particularly unstable nuclear power (and one that could easily transfer nuclear technology to other states in the region that are fearful of Iran"s nuclear ambitions, or could simply lose control of its nuclear arsenal). The primary foreign policy task of an American president in the post-Sept. 11 era is to prevent jihadist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. It"s therefore impossible to ignore a region in which this acquisition would most likely take place. As for terrorism, the threat to the U.S. posed by the central al-Qaeda organization (currently headquartered in territory controlled by our ostensible ally, Pakistan) is dramatically lower than it was 11 years ago. Yet contrary to what Ron Paul might claim, no counterterrorism expert believes that a comprehensive American withdrawal from the Mideast would bring about an end to anti-American jihadist terrorism. There will be no ground invasions of Muslim countries in the near future; Iraq and Afghanistan have immunized the U.S."its people and its government"against that level of interventionism. Yet it"s na"ve to think that abandoning American responsibilities in the region would lead to anything but the further empowerment of radical ideologues. The Middle East is a continual source of woe. There is something seductive about the notion of pivoting away from it toward " well, anything, really. Yet it will be a terrible mistake for the U.S. to avert its eyes simply because what it sees constitutes nothing but trouble. |
42 | 311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Hockey is a better sport than football. Well Josh, on the argument about all the pads and equipment that football players wear, hockey players wear just about the same amount of padding as football players. And wouldn't you say that hockey players need to be very endured and have to change directions at the blink of an eye as well? For example, the puck consistently is either batted or knocked around on the ice multiple times in the matter of a few seconds. So, wouldn't you say, that as a hockey player you need to be ready to change directions as fast as the puck does? In the argument that football is more popular than hockey, you are right in the sense that hockey stands beneath football in popularity, *in the United States. Football is an American made sport, where as hockey is a Canadian made sport. It is clear that football would be generally more entertaining and popular to the American public then hockey would be. However, internationally, hockey is much more popular then football. So overall, Hockey would win the popularity contest. |
31 | e07fb55a-2019-04-18T19:12:59Z-00003-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Anarchy is a disease plagiarism for the win...? As we can see my opponent has used a movie quote to try and negate my previous argument... |
15 | 61bc36ea-2019-04-18T12:14:22Z-00005-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal Testing. New medicines require testing because researchers must measure both the beneficial and the harmful effects of a compound on a whole organism. A medicine is initially tested in vitro using tissues and isolated organs, but legally and ethically it must also be tested in a suitable animal model before clinical trials in humans can take place. The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials. Testing on animals aso serves to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood. The chemicals that we use day-to-day can accumulate in the water, ground or air around us, and their potential impact on the environment must be researched thoroughly. |
27 | f0274824-2019-04-18T14:01:34Z-00006-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | #MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment Rebuttals: Your rebuttal of my chart showing the gun violence is not adequate enough. Louisiana, no matter what you say, has the worst gun control and has the MOST deaths of all the southern states. And California, a state with a lot of gun control, has one of the least gun related deaths in America. This shows also disproves your statement that more people would die because criminals would get guns because the facts show other wise. Guns in the household also increase the likely hood of suicide. "Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Enacting common sense gun control would decrease the homicide rate by firearms Currently out of the 12796 murders in the US 88555 of them were gun related. If you take away the guns most criminals wont go for a gun like I pointed out above (over 62 percent wouldn't get a gun illegally) or they will use a knife which cant effectively murder people or MASS amount of people like guns can Also I don't understand your question? I didn't "utterly fail to address the question". Guns are RARELY used in self defense according the charts I have. Only about 1000 gun incidents are defense. The VAST majority are homicides, accidents and suicides ALL decreasing if you enact common sense gun control In the end I have an argument and you don't. I don't have an extremist position but you do. I didn't say remove ALL guns. I said enact a law that restricts guns from criminals and the mentally ill, however it would still be available to citizens who could pass the background check. You believe there should be no gun control and let countless more die. Vote CON!!! Sources: http://static1.businessinsider.com... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.infoplease.com... |
32 | 538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00005-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for the quick response Mr. Voices. Let's look to my points and whether my opponent adequately refutes them. 1) IRV increases strategic voting My original argument was that ranking your preferred candidate as number 1 can make him/her lose and ranking your least preferred candidate last can help him/her to win. This makes no sense. People have to vote strategically under IRV as well to prevent their votes from being wasted or having a counterproductive result. My opponent says that you can just leave the box blank. But this doesn't answer the argument that "ranking a candidate higher can actually cause the candidate to lose, and ranking a candidate lower can cause the candidate to win." If you leave the box blank, that's equivalent to ranking the candidate last. It doesn't change the problems with IRV. 2) Extra candidates My argument was that IRV is stupid because it's possible that candidate A beats candidate B in a head-to-head election, but if candidate C enters the race, suddenly candidate B beats candidate A. That makes absolutely no sense. Parties will run fake candidates to split the vote of popular candidates so they don't make it to the final 2. My opponent just nitpicks an assumption I make in the scenario I gave, but that's the point of giving hypotheticals: it simplifies the issue so it's easier to understand. And it's not that far-fetched. Median voter theory states that voters will prefer candidates who are closer to them on the political spectrum. So if this is the political spectrum: Liberal Conservative Then it's not that far-fetched to believe that if candidate A loses, all of his supporters will instead vote for candidate B. This proves that fielding extra candidates DOES split the vote, potentially causing the winner in a head-to-head election to instead lose in the first round of vote counting. 3) The candidate with majority support can lose My opponent's response has something to do with doing a poll under the current system. However, the point of this objection is that under ALL voting systems, the person who is preferred by a majority should win (assuming you believe in democracy). However, if you remember the example of John, David, and Peter, the majority preferred John to David, but David wins because Peter knocks John out of the race in round 1. Yet 60% of voters preferred John to David. A "first past the post" system better upholds democratic values. 4) People won't research all the additional candidates. My opponent says that this happens now. However, NOW there are usually only two viable candidates. Under instant runoff, your choice of who to rank second or third could entirely sway the outcome of the election. This requires a level of research that people do not do. The two party system simplifies the electoral process for people. I wonder how the majority of voters will choose their rankings, given that few people do research on candidates. It's a double bind: either people rank third party candidates without researching them (which undermines democracy) OR they do the responsible thing and don't rank anyone but the Democrat and Republican, which is functionally the same as the current system. Best case, my opponent is advocating for the current system. Worst case, he is advocating for people making uninformed rankings that can completely alter the outcome of the election. 5) Ballot counting My opponent advocates hand counting. However, his source's speculative claim doesn't seem to be true. You have to pay people to count the ballots by hand. You also have to print a different type of ballot than the ones we currently use with machines. I would like my opponent to prove we can afford such a system. In addition, hand counting leads to its own problems. In Republican states, it is likely Republicans would be counting the ballots. When there are marginal ballots where it's unclear who someone voted for, Republican vote counters are going to be biased and award more marginal ballots to the Republican candidate. Bryan Pfaffenberger, a professor at the University of Virginia, points out, "By taking paper out of the voting process, mechanical voting machines make it impossible for anyone to invalidate a ballot. A complex interlocking system – a technological achievement – prevents overvoting, in which a voter casts votes for more candidates than the law permits. Above all, the voting machine's virtue was precisely that it left nothing for partisan election officials to haggle over." He continues, "Returning to [hand counting] might work well in areas with lots of oversight, but in contrast to other stable democracies, this movement has made little progress in the US. Throughout most of the country, today's election system has more in common with that of the 1890s: It's inadequately supervised, insufficiently professionalized, and all too often staffed with openly partisan officials. Under these circumstances, what voting machine backers believed a century ago still holds true: It just isn't wise to let people count ballots." http://www.csmonitor.com... My opponent also doesn't answer the following arguments: *Federalism: each State has the right to adopt its own system. The federal government cannot mandate how they apportion votes. *Electoral college: IRV doesn't work well with winner take all. In states that award electors proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote, you're not "throwing your vote away" if you vote third party. That person still gets electors. If all states adopted proportionate systems, that would be preferable to IRV. *Multi-party presidential systems are bad. The Kellogg School (at Northwestern) found that in all of history, there has only been ONE stable multi-party presidential system. Most presidential systems with successful third parties stagnate because the legislature can't get anything done. We can barely get anything done with two parties who always disagree. Imagine if we had 4 or 5 disagreeing. *The Guardian's analysis of the 2010 UK election shows that IRV does NOT increase the number of third party candidates that win. So IRV doesn't accomplish my opponent's goals anyways. *If you don't want to throw your vote away, vote for one of the two major parties. This solves. Even under IRV, Ross Perot would have still lost. The only way IRV could have possibly changed the outcome is that Bush might have beat Clinton because IRV might have screwed up the election. The lack of third parties has to do with our form of government (presidential vs. parliamentary), and NOT with the way the votes are counted. |
19 | d00daaa1-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage should be legal I know I debated this recently (like, yesterday), but it was really light and barely touched on the complexity and depth of the issue, so I decided that I wanted to do it again. I am extremely disappointed with this week's results in Maine. Voters have said yes to hate, intolerance, fear and discrimination. A vote is a vote, and I'll respect that, but they voted the wrong way. I will alow my opponent to begin. |
16 | c27a55cc-2019-04-18T15:07:00Z-00001-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drugs should be legal Drugs should not be legal. Drugs of harder caliber drawl people powerless and incapacitate them. The danger can not be underestimated and the feds should pursue such potent drugs out of american life. Drugs with a peaceful recreational use should be regulated by state and its municipalities. Responsible Use, and Responses to Abuses --should be the focus on lesser mind-altering substances Beer and Wine should be left as is over-the-counter. Tobacco products could be re-regulated(cleaned up) with its consumers well-being coming first. Hard liquor should be tagged with an extra tax, giving way to.. Marijuana Reform..which is so CRUCIAL that one can only wonder why/how it has not already been undertaken in its sensible manner. I have a layout for its reformation..for another argument. Legalizing Drugs could only endanger every human being |
16 | 965182fe-2019-04-18T12:07:01Z-00000-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be legalized. I want to say that I had made a counterplan that you did not bother to address. I simply said useless drugs like heroin can be the only drugs illegal. Making them legal will give people the opportunity to abuse the drug. People can commit suicide purposely overdosing on a drug. If it were to be legal, people would be aware of the strength of each drug. I agreed that most drugs should be legalized. I just said certain should not. Certain have no use in being legalized. If heroin was legalized and it were in the home of parents with children, children would think what they're doing was okay and they can easily get ahold of the drug that they were not yet educated on and abuse it. There are a lot of things we do without knowing the meaning or danger of it. Again, a kid being in a household with dangerous drugs is risky. I agree in the face of not being allowed to have something makes you want to have it more. BUt there are just some drugs that don't have to be brought into the picture. It's mostly about the children not knowing anything about it at all and just using it. If we kept at least things like heroin illegal, we can educate children on why it is. |
38 | a33194f5-2019-04-18T18:29:39Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana should become legalised Sorry for the wait, and here are my arguments. A) Marijuana affects one of your most important organs—the brain. Studies have shown that this drug affects the blood flow to the brain, which may explain why cannabis users have trouble with memory or thinking [1] [2]. Researches studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers. "The marijuana users volunteered to participate in an inpatient program and abstained from marijuana use for a month." "Blood flow in the brain was analyzed at the beginning of the study and at the end of the month for the marijuana users. Researchers found blood flow was significantly higher in marijuana users than in nonusers, both at the beginning and at the end of the study." Thus, it is evident from the study that marijuana not only negatively affects your brain; these negative effects linger within your brain even after a month (this is not that all surprising, considering cannabis has nearly 400 chemicals inside it). In other words, even after you have stopped using marijuana, your blood flow is still altered, which can lead to trouble thinking or remembering things. Furthermore, this study also revealed that cannabis causes high levels of pulsatility index (PI). "The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes," says researcher Ronald Herning. B) Marijuana also causes several detrimental medical effects to one's health (both short-term and long-term). This includes slowed reaction time, distorted sense of time, anxiety, depression, and lower levels of sperm count and quality (in men). Other symptoms include weakening of the immune system, limiting the brain's capacity to retrieve and store information, damage to the brain's memory functions (including math and verbal skills), increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack, and loss of motivation and/or interest in everyday activities [3] [4]. These side affects in turn lead to things such as car accidents (if driving after having smoked marijuana), trouble learning, lowered grades, shoddy work, and possibly even a heart attack. In addition, cannabis is addictive, despite what pot smokers may tell you. I do not mean physically addictive, but rather psychologically addictive [3]. However, it is also possible that marijuana is physically addictive. Some symptoms of withdrawal from pot may include aggression, anxiety, and a depressed mood. C) Cannabis is even more dangerous when used by the young population, whose minds are still developing. Studies have shown that various risky behaviors such as gambling, drinking, fighting, steroid use, and smoking cigarettes were all associated with higher risk for marijuana [5]. Self-harm behaviors were also associated with marijuana use. By legalizing marijuana, the government would be exposing our young population (this includes students, children, etc.) even more than before to this drug. D) Now, marijuana alone is obviously detrimental to one's health (as shown above); however, it gets even worse when mixed with other drugs. For example, if I were to mix marijuana with cocaine and smoke it, then the effects on my health would be much worse than before. By legalizing this drug, the government would be allowing the people to mix marijuana with other drugs, causing the danger upon one's health to increase significantly. Pro's Case- Marijuana is dangerous My opponent: "So, quite simply, if Marijuana is less dangerous than other legalised products, then it should be legalised." This statement is not true. Simply because another drug that is legalized does not make it okay to legalize another less dangerous drug. Marijuana, as I have shown, is clearly detrimental to one's health (especially mixed with other drugs); thus, all the government would be doing is exposing the people to even more harmful drugs, and their justification would be that it is less harmful when compared to some of the most dangerous drugs on the planet (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, etc.). They should be more focused on getting rid of alcohol and tobacco instead of simply increasing the danger to society. It is never wise to fight fire with fire, or in this case, add fire to even more fire. Furthermore, my opponent's source [4] simply leads to a page stating, "Lead Poisoning Due to Adulterated Marijuana," which simply supports me as it shows the dangers of marijuana. It is because of this that I would like to ask where my opponent has gotten the following information he put in R2: "But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer." Moreover, while cannabis may not increase the risk of lung cancer, it may increase the risk of testicular cancer. "The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence." [6] Therefore, it is evident that cannabis may also cause testicular cancer, which is another health risk (out of many) that this drug causes. Is there any danger at all? My opponent: "The legalisation of pure marijuana is what I am advocating." Actually, my opponent is advocating the legislation of marijuana and not just pure marijuana, as was agreed upon in the first round. In addition, pure marijuana is still harmful (as I have previously shown). Afterward, my opponent posts more arguments in my favor. Please note that my opponent is advocating cannabis with lead in it, and that lead is extremely harmful to one's health as Pro has proved for me. Is this really something that you want to be smoking? Do you wish to smoke something that has detrimental effects that are (as Pro puts it), "life long and irreversible?" If it ain't broke, don't fix it Here my opponent attempts to show that legalizing marijuana we will increase our own economic situation; however, I can just as easily show examples where legalization did not work. For example, the Netherlands was having second thoughts on legalizing marijuana. [7] [8] "After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds." [7] "Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who "complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht's small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems." [7] As you can see, while Panama may have been successful in their legalization, the Netherlands certainly were not. This is most likely due to different variables that are changing throughout the country. In other words, the legalization of marijuana alone is not enough to help or hurt a country, because other variables could affect the outcome (after all, it took Panama five years to get positive results, and many different things can change in five years). Conclusion- From the evidence that I have provided, it is clear that marijuana is harmful to human health due to a plethora of detrimental side affects and is even more dangerous when mixed with drugs already legalized; thus, it should stay banned. [1] http://alcoholism.about.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.cesar.umd.edu... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.news-medical.net... [7] http://www.justthinktwice.com... [8] http://alcoholism.about.com.... |
26 | ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America First, the rules have stated that you back up your claims with adequate evidence. You have not provided any evidence, so I ask that you provide evidence from now on. Your point one is saying that standardized testing takes away from class time. Standardized testing teaches things in the test, so you are saying that standardized tests teach too much about the tests and too little about the other subjects. This is another way of saying "teaching to the test." According to Marcus Hirn, ""Teaching to the test" can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don't produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel. [18] The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that "if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more." [19]" This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Your second point is saying that standardized testing is stressful. However, according to Jay Rakow, founder of ProCon.org, Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: "Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned." [19] A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that "the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs." Standardized testing is NOT stressful, and the little stress it exhibits is normal and expected in life. Your third point is standardized testing does not affect student's grades. It actually provides the state with how students are DOING WELL. This is effective. Your solution, using students' overall grades, is ineffective. Worksheets and projects are good ways to test students about little categories here and there, but a standardized test is basically a big worksheet covering EVERYTHING. Now, onto my case. Contention 1: Standardized Testing Holds Educators Accountable (Hughes 2015) Their objectivity and ability to measure student learning, standardized tests are useful tools for holding teachers, schools, and districts accountable for success or failure. The tests help education officials pinpoint where something isn't working in a school or district. Contention 2: The alternative to Standardized Testing is Tenure, a proven failure. (Winters 2012) Their potential contribution to improving teacher quality--the single most important school based factor for fostering student learning--far outweighs the upfront cost. The alternatives to standardized testing have proved to fail, therefore standardized testing is the only possible program left. Contention 3: Standardized testing allows us to determine the most effective teaching strategies, and to make them contextually specific. Geir (2007) Several studies have examined the impacts of inquiry science interventions on measured achievement as they scale up to enactment across multiple schools involving thousands of students. In an experiment in 2006, data suggests a cumulative effect of the intervention as students participate over several years. The data describes positive achievement effects from a standards-based curriculum unit enacted in 10 urban middle schools. Contention 4: All effective educators determine instructional approach by adjusting to data revealed by assessment. More data is not bad, provided it's more accurate than no data at all. Aycock (2014) How would we know what kids know without assessments? That"s the purpose of testing kids " to figure out what they know and are able to do. Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still hasn"t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don"t need to teach it to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching " and that data comes from assessments. In sum, testing lets us know what kids know and can do, which helps us teach them better. Contention 5: Standardized Testing evaluates and improves student performance. Hughes (2015) Standardized testing is an indicator of skill. They are excellent objective indicators of student performance. The tests are designed to measure how well students learned the skills important tot meet state standards. Contention 6: Standardized Testing reveals and corrects flaws in students Flanagan (2009) Standardized testing yield quantifiable info results that can be used in screening programs, identifying students in need of further assessment. Standardized test results provide info regarding an examiner's areas of strength and weakness. Standardized tests can be used to assess students' progress over time results from a test administered in a standardized fashion can be empirically verified. This allows for results to be interpreted and ideas about an individual's skills generalized. That is why you should vote Aff. |
44 | 5666d2e5-2019-04-18T12:54:00Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Columbus Day This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. In this country, we should categorize men like this as a murderer instead of a national hero. Let's begin by looking at how this became a holiday...it was a celebration by certain members of society because he was Italian and Catholic. His accomplishment of reaching America made him a hero in those communities. But how did he go from being a hero in the Italian and Catholic groups to being a hero in the United States? First of all, he did not "discover" America. Unless you ignore world history until this point, you know that there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed, so how can you "discover" something when there is already someone living there. Not only that, he never even touched down into the modern-day United States. He explored islands in the Caribbean and in central America, not in the present day United States. To give credit where credit is due, his explorations led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas. However, that is not how Columbus is perceived is most parts of our society. My final point in this round is that there are only two holidays here in the United States that are named after individuals; Columbus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Washington's birthday has been reduced to an overall President's Day. It appalls me that Columbus has a holiday named after him, but Washington, the father of our country, Lincoln, who in a round about way ended slavery, nor heroes like Pat Tillman have holidays named after them....you know, TRUE HEROES! |
40 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
16 | 9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00014-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be decriminalised There is no legal bar on the purchase of alcoholic drink and cigarettes, though both are often addictive |
38 | 86fca69d-2019-04-18T17:25:36Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Legalization of Marijuana Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized because it could cause young children to think that it's ok to do drugs. Legalizing drugs is like telling a teen it's ok to engage in risky behavior, when drugs are involved, there is an increase of possible death or permeant injury. I'll agree that prescribed drugs are just as easily abused, but this drug should be used due to its "safe" use, when actually it could cause serious problems later on in life or cause a serious reaction due to a existing medical condition. Again this can happen with prescribed drugs, but the drug in question is just as dangerous as herion and cocaine. |
15 | fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00004-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | should standardised testing be eliminated I believe that standardized testing should be eliminated. They are not even a way for one to show their intellect. |
7 | 826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00007-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. "The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. "(1)"5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. "(1) "State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. "(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. |
12 | 71bfcb55-2019-04-18T20:02:15Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | The "pro-life" position must necessarily reject sexual reproduction I'll first address the utilitarianism argument. I, for one, do, to a significant degree, advocate utilitarianism. With the regards to the scenario you brought up, however, I do not believe that a utilitarianist must say that the doctor is morally obligated to kill one man to save four others. More than anything, this is not the doctor's choice to make, but rather the man whose death is in question. And yes, I might say that the "right" thing to do would be for him to give his life that four others may live, but there are really too many circumstantial details to be able to form a clear image of what right and wrong are. With regards to how this relates to my argument, I do not believe my position is worse. We are not "allowing" the death of a fetus by conceiving it. It is a mother's responsibility to do all she can to ensure the survival of her child, and if in doing so the pregnancy still fails, it could not be said that it was allowed to happen. Only if the mother was actively putting the child's life in risk after its conception could you lay moral responsibility, such as if she were to smoke or drink. To address the birth control pill: I do not personally know a good deal about birth control pills or other forms of pregnancy protection, as this is something I have not had to deal with yet (as I abstain for moral reasons). However, if it is indeed the case that using birth control pills means there will later on be a higher chance of fetus mortality, then I definitely would be against it. You make it seem as if this position is absurd, yet I see no reason for it to be so. For waiting until science progresses to the point that it can significantly increase the chance of fetus survival, I believe this is simply illogical and impractical. While me may assume that science will be available in the near future, we cannot know for certain. To hold off an conceiving a child on the basis that, at some unkown time in the future, there might be a higher chance of survival is absurd. While once this technology is readily available I would certainly advocate its use, as I see nothing wrong in believing that one should in fact do all they can to protect a child, unborn or not, I see no sense in simply waiting around for it to occur. Now, for the idea of making it illegal for women with a higher chance of birth failure to naturally conceive. I will concede that, at least to a degree, you are right. I consider it prudent and wise to make sure that there are no significant risks before going about trying to conceive a child. However, legislature requiring one to do such would only be valid to any degree if there was also similar legislature against abortion. And while I do take the position of being against abortion in this argument, never have I said that there should be legislation against it--finding abortion morally reprehensible is not synonymous with necessitating its illegality. Thus, your claim to legal action against higher risk for a fetus has no basis as I have not argued it should exist for abortions. Finally, I will make one more argument against your claim as a whole. To be blunt, you have drawn out the idea of pro-life to an illogical absurdity. One could equally argue that if you are pro-choice you are necessarily in favor of infanticide. For, if you can advocate the killing of a fetus because it is not a fully sentient and conscious being, why not kill a newborn for the same reasons? However, to make such a claim is unfair, as it draws an idea to such an extreme that it naturally does become illogical. As a last word, I address the voters: DO NOT VOTE FOR THE SIDE YOU AGREE WITH. Just because you are against abortion does not mean you should not vote for my opponent: this is not a contest of who is right, who is wrong, but of who can present the -better argument-. I swear, if anybody votes for one of us simply because they agree with our stance on a moral level, I will find out where you live, hunt you down, and shake my fist at you angrily. -Very- angrily. And for kvaughan, thanks for the debate. I had a lot of fun, and you are definitely a (at least) worthy opponent. |
40 | 1e632fc2-2019-04-18T18:30:29Z-00008-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished ==Arguments== C1: DeterrenceThe Death Penalty serves as a determent to criminals. There is a relationship between the death penalty and murder. The deterrent effect of the death penalty helps to save lives, ultimately resulting in the overall prevention of the loss of human life [1]. Multiple studies that have occured over time have demonstrated that the death penalty saves lives [1]. Several professors of Emory University found in a 2003 nationwide study that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders [6]. A 2006 study found that each execution results in five fewer homicides [7]. Shorter waits on death row is connectted with increased deterrence. For every 2.75-year reduction of the time a death row inmate has to wait, at least one murder is deterred. The Emory group used nationwide data from 1960 to 2000,and discovered that 91% of the states had higher homicide rates after they suspended the death penalty [11]. On the other hand, 70% of the states had homicides decrease after the Death Penalty was put back in place [11]. Furthermore, a study, from the Wall Street Journal found that the death penalty saves 74 lives by stopping possible murderers in the next year [12]. C2: Bargaining ChipThe Death Penalty provides leverage and allows prosecutors to use it as a "bargaining chip" to obtain guilty pleas and plea bargains [2] [3]. The criminal justice system is sped up by the DP, which helps to prevent backlogging. Research has shown that 90% of cases in the US are resolved by plea bargains, with the guilty party admitting to all or part of the offenses charged in exchange for reduced/lenient charges [4]. This showsOne example is the case of 12-year-old Zina Linnick's disappearance. Even a remote threat of using the death penalty could give enough of an incentive for a person to confess [3]. Another example would be serial killers Robert Yates and Gary Ridgway. The confessed due to the threat of the death penalty [3]. Without a doubt, the death penalty allows prosecutors to get information quicker. This can even possibly save lives - such as revealing the location of an abducted person about to die. C3: AccuracyDNA testing and other modern forms of forensic science have allowed us to eleminate all doubt or suspicsion towards a person's guilt or innoncence. DNA testing helps to effectively prosecuting the guilty and protects the innocent [8]. Furthermore, a jury of twelve have to unanimously decide that they have no doubt that the defendent is guilty in order to sentence a person to death. [9]Furthermore, the death penalty has nearly a 99.6% rate of accuracy. C4: PopularityGallup polls have shown that the majority of Americans support the Death Penalty. Our goverment is based on a republic, and a republic at its heart, is ruled by the majority. Gallup polls reveal that:1) There is a consistant trend of the majority supporting the death penalty being used in cases where the guilty party is convicted of murder. In 2011, 61% supported the DP while only 35% was agaisnt it.2) Even over time, the majority of Americans believe that the Death Penalty is used not enough.3) The majority of people believe that the death penalty is currently being applied fairly.4) Furthermore, there is a tendency that most people believe that the Death Penalty is morally acceptable. 65% of people believe it is right, while only 28% believe it is wrong.5) OVer time, people have constantly shown that they believe when choosing between the death penalty and imprisonment for life (without parole), the death penalty should be used. The Gallup Poll(s) can be found at my 10th source. ==Rebuttals==C1: Life in PrisonMy opponent tries to suggest the idea that criminals do not suffer when they die. However, you must consider that usually, we are talking about murderers. They took the life of another person, why do they get to live? it is commonly preached that iving life, no matter how bad, is far more preferable than death. And furthermore, my opponent concedes the fact that you cannot confirm that the inmate will stay in jail for life. Goverment officials or judges can offer clemency, parole, or find a reason for a new trial [13]. Unlike what PRO claims, by putting murderers in prison for life without parole, does not mean that they will not get out. Furthermore, we put the lives of of other people who commited less severe crimes at risk, due to the fact that there are far more dangerous murderers in jail. Say in 2012, there are X number of murderers scheduled to be executed. However, they are sent to prison. This means there will be X more murderers in prisons. Then in 2013, there are Y number of murderers who should be executed, but they are sent to prison. X + Y in prison. And so on. Furthermore, the numbers will continue to grow until the first generation (X) start to die. We see that there is going to be an accumulation of murderers - which make prisons far more dangerous then they are now. C2: Killing is Immoral? As for my opponents argument on how "We might kill innocents", please see my accuracy contention. Furthermore, if Killing is "immoral", then war obviously cannot be tolerated. However, war can be justified, when you are going to war in order to preserve and defend your country. My deterrence argument shows that when we kill people who have commited horribly immoral acts, we actually save the lives of others, who are completely innocent. In my eyes, these executions are perfectly justified. All of my opponents other arguments I have answerered within my own contentions. I await your response. Sources:[1]. http://www.heritage.org......[2]http://sentencing.typepad.com......[3]http://www.thenewstribune.com......[4]http://www.thecrimereport.org......[5] Joanna M. Shepherd, "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment," Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 33 (June 2004), pp. 283-321. [6] Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd, "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data," American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2003), pp. 344-376. [7]. http://www.washingtonpost.com......[8]http://www.forensicmag.com......[9]http://crime.about.com......[10]http://www.gallup.com......[11]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[12]http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu...(ChronicleofHigherEd).pdf[13] David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives"[14]. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... |
19 | 4ce3fccf-2019-04-18T16:32:51Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | America Should Legalize Gay marriage And for dealing with my stupidity lol. .. This is also my first debate on gay marriage, and also my first debate on Debate. org or any public event (excluding classroom debates in my current high school), so if I sound unprofessional and/or really ignorant/naive, my apologies. LAST ROUND! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! My reply to: An apologyHaha apology accepted. I didn't actually mind at all, people (me for example) make mistakes all the time, so it's cool. :) The happiness argumentRepresentative CON refuted my claim that preventing GLBT from marrying isn't taking away from their natural rights because the government still allows them to "live together" and "have a life-long relationship. " The only difference, as my opponent points out, is that we are not "recognizing their relationship in the same way we recognize traditional marriage. " However, the entire point of marriage is to allow two people to live together in a non-scandalous manner. To not recognize their relationship as a legal union of two lives is taking away their option of a more permanent union. Anyway, if you don't forbid them from living together as married couples do, what is the point of forbidding them from marriage? My opponent contravenes my argument that GLBT are being discriminated against by saying "no one has the right to gay marriage" which isn't depriving certain individuals from gay marriage but all of them. However, this is similar to two examples of the past, where we discriminated against an entire people group: slavery and women's rights. America used to sustain slavery, not saying some colored people didn't deserve freedom, but all of them. This is discrimination and against the constitution, as I repeat, states "All men are created equal. " Another example, which has been corrected, is women's suffrage. Back in the 1800's, women were not allowed to vote and were discriminated against due to something that was not their choice, their GENDER. Same for colored people, they had no say in their race. Now, we look back and think of how silly we used to be, and see that by giving women our rights, we are doing the right thing and being equal to all people. However, now the controversy to be debated is gay rights. In the past, America discriminated against women and colored folk by saying WHITE MEN could vote and do what they wanted but females and colored could not. Now, they are discriminating against GLBT by saying straight people may marry, but different orientations may not. Moods, alcohol, anxietyMy apologies for not clearing up my statistics. What I found was a positive correlation between the banning of gay marriage in states and the increase of these disorders found in GLBT people due to the stress caused by inability to legally unite with their loved one. My opponent points out that I didn't fully defend the second half of this argument, so here it is, my apologies. :( Good things should be legalized, such as gay marriage, which brings about a decrease in divorce rates. Why should this good influence be legalized? Because our society today is too negative and higher divorce rates usually also ruin the lives of children, according to a survey asking them how they would feel, done by Robert E. Emery, PhD. [1]Religious vs. legal reasonsWell, my opponent agrees with me (Yay! Finally my beginner's luck kicks in! !! ), so I guess I won't go into any more detail. Going into my opponents arguments and disputing his reasons. .. .Why does the government regulate marriage? A special link to childrenAlthough my opponent bring up a good point in that marriages are related heavily to the children a married couple supports, he does not state why two men or two women can't publicly/officially declare their sexual relations, or aren't allowed to. If a GLBT couple were married, there is no reason why they can't adopt or have a donor egg/sperm sample. This way, they can raise their children too, and "build society" in a similar way that straight couples "build society" and raise their children. Gay marriages do not qualify for this type of relationshipI'm going to try to word this without sounding snotty or offensive. .. . My opponent doesn't clearly impart his reasons as to how and why gay marriage doesn't "create society in the way traditional marriage does. " If he means it creates a different type of society, then yes, I agree. However, it may be for the better because this difference isn't necessarily bad; the only reason most Americans don't like difference is because they are scared of change, for fear of the unknown. On the other hand, if this is not what he means, sorry for my misinterpretation. :(Couldn't gay marriage have some other effects on society though? Ummmm. .. . again with the "building society. " My sincere apologies, but I am completely and utterly confused as to what my opponent means :( Could you define "build society" please? I'm assuming it means something along the lines of "makes our country better as a whole. " If this is so, my argument is that since we have never tried to legalize gay marriage, how could one know whether or not it affects our society? My opponent has made an observation without basis due to lack of historical evidence. (Is that how you're supposed to word it? ) I suggest that we should completely legalize gay marriage in all states, and if they somehow ruin our society (which is already f*cked up, thanks to Miley Cyrus and others, and I don't think it can get any worse. .. just my opinion), we can re-outlaw it and leave this issue be. So gay marriage and traditional marriage aren't on the same footingAccording to dictionary. com, fun·da·men·tal--serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure. I think one thing shouldn't be defined as "more" fundamental than another thing, due to the fact that if they are both fundamental, they are both essential. If both are necessary to the public, then we should legalize both. I'm not saying that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, I'm just saying that just because it is different does not mean it's unnecessary. My opponent argues that SSM shouldn't be given the same legal status as TM because they don't affect society to the same degree; however, an example to contradict this is, as I used before, is women's suffrage. Women don't affect this society the same as men do, but we do have the same legal rights. Gay marriage should have the same legal status, though it doesn't have the same effect on society. Summary To summarize what I contradicted in my opponent's argument, it can be stated:P1: Although Relationship A and B don't affect society the same way, everything affects society and contributes to what America is today. P2: Even though traditional marriage may affect society more than gay marriage does currently, there is insufficient evidence (due to lack of historical substantiation) to show that it doesn't affect society, if it were in full blown action (legal in all states). C: GLBT marriage should be legally established as the same as gay marriage. I believe I have sufficiently defended all my previous arguments and refuted all of my opponent's premises. That being said, and his premises adequately refuted, my conclusion is as follows. Since, as my opponent has stated, " 'legalizing gay marriage' typically means putting gay marriage right along side traditional marriage," I believe it clearly should be legalized. Just to match my opponent's format of this debate, I'd like to add this:I'd also like to curse DDO users Contradiction and xXCryptoXx, who introduced this argument to my opponent, who clearly knows what he's doing, unlike me, a beginner. HAHA JK THANKS YOU GUYS for giving me the opportunity to grow out of my little bubble where I thought there was no faith in humanity anymore and people couldn't give a decent debate about anything. MY DEEPEST APPRECIATION! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !LAST ROUND. .. . Over to my opponent! !! Thanks for this opportunity to debate you! !! !! :D Sources:[1] Laumann-Billings, L. &. Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 671-687. [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... |
23 | a2c85c65-2019-04-18T16:57:45Z-00002-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia I have the same objects to Physician assisted suicide as I do with Euthanasia, they are it is immoral, they are subjective, there is no right to die, it will lead down a slippery slope to other things, it really isn't voluntary, it is against any every major religion, and it degrades human life. First lets address my opponents points. "patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. " You mentioned Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon you qualify for PAS if "An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner" [1] It makes no mention of pain. Further, "It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available. " [2] Since Pain can be controlled it should not be used as a reason to kill yourself. "physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering" When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [3] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patient's interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. "DWD is the humane thing to do" This is basically saying it is compassionate to kill them because they have no hope of recovery. "A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth. Antibiotics, immunizations, modern surgery and many of today's routine therapies or medications were unknown then. " [4] It is never humane to kill humans, and there is always hope for a cure. Now to the objections 1. Immoral One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one's life [5] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one's life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts. 2. Subjectivity Due to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as "means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months" [1] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for. 3. Right to Die The courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington's ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [6] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. 4. Slippery Slope The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [7] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following. We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things. 5. Voluntary? Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. "The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had "an incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain" was not the pain, not the "restricted lifestyle," and not the fear of being "dependent of machines," but rather that they "don't want to be a burden" to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member's life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a "burden. "" [8] "Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are" [2] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://euthanasia.procon.org... [2] . http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [3] . http://www.life.org.nz... [4] . http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [5] . http://www.siue.edu... [6] . http://www.oyez.org... [7] . http://www.nejm.org... [8] . https://www.nrlc.org... |
39 | bbfbb9d4-2019-04-18T15:39:51Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | JC was NOT the messiah Bs'd As I have shown in my second round of this debate, JC did NOT fulfill the messianic prophecies. What I have brought there, are undisputed messianic prophecies, about which everybody, Jew and Christian, admit that they are messianic prophecies. And no one will content the fact that they are not fulfilled. Everybody can claim to be the messiah, and in fact many did and still do, and therefore the only valid criteria to establish the veracity of those claims, is the fulfilment of the messianic prophecies. And in fulfilling them, also JC failed. So in order to make their false messiah look authentic, Christians rip OT (Only Testament) verses which have no bearing on the messiah whatsoever out of context, often mistranslate them, and then present them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC". This is done by both the NT and individual Christians. Here are some examples of the NT doing just that: The NT brings us prophecies of which it claims that they are fulfilled by JC. Let us take a closer look at those. The first one we find in Matthew 1:21; "she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us)." This text can be found in Isaiah 7:14; "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." Revised Standard Version. We see here that here in Isaiah is not spoken about a virgin, but about a young woman. It is of course much more normal that a young woman gets pregnant than that a virgin gets pregnant. But Isaiah clearly speaks about a young woman, and not a virgin. Some translations say, for instance the King James, say in Isaiah 7:14 "virgin", and not "young woman", but that is a wrong translation. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah", and that means "young woman", and not virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". That word is used for instance when the Torah speaks about Rebecca in Gen 24:16; "The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known." This fact is recognized by many Christian Bible translators. For instance the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the New World Translation have translated this in the right way, and not as "virgin". So the NT has been misquoting the Hebrew Bible. Nowhere in the Tanach (Tanach is compilation of the first letters of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Nevi'iem, (prophets), and Chetuviem, (writings)) is a virgin to be found who would get pregnant. In fact, NOWHERE in the Tanach does a virgin bear a child. This concept is only to found in pagan mythology. And when we look at the whole chapter of Isaiah 7, then we see that it doesn't speak about the messiah. It speaks about God giving a sign to Achaz, that he will have peace in his days. This chapter has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever. What the NT does is ripping a text out of context, mistranslating it, and presenting it as a messianic prophecy. Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT: Matt 2:14 "And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."" Here a text from Hosea 11: 1 which says: "out of Egypt I called my son" is applied to the messiah. But let's take a look WHO is the "son of God" in the Tanach: "And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'" Exodus 4:22 This is clear language. And also in Hosea 11:1 it CLEARLY speaks about Israel, which has been led out of slavery from Egypt by God. See here Hosea 11:1 complete, and not a part ripped out of context: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Just read the whole chapter of Hosea 11 and see that it all speaks about Israel, and not about the messiah. What the NT is doing here once again is ripping a piece of text out of context which has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever, and then present it as a "messianic prophecy". Something it obviously is not. Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT: Matt 2:16-18 "Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more."" Here the NT claims that Jeremiah 31:15 speaks about a slaughter of children, taking place in the days of the messiah. And now read what is really happening there: Jeremiah 31: "10 "Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands afar off; say, 'He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.' 11 For the LORD has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him. 12 They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. 13 Then shall the maidens rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. 14 I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, says the LORD." 15 Thus says the LORD: "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." 16 Thus says the LORD: "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 17 There is hope for your future, says the LORD, and your children shall come back to their own country." As everyone can see, this speaks about Israel which went into exile, and of whom God says that they will return from the exile back to the land of Israel. There is a lot more where this comes from, but I'm limited to only 10.000 characters, so I have to cut it short. The full text can be read here: https://sites.google.com... And also Christians do the same thing; rippig OT (Only Testament) verses which have no bearing on the messiah whatsoever out of context, often mistranslating them, and then presenting them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC". Here are a few examples: 324 messianic prophecies, fulfilled by Jesus! The Baptist preachers, the light of truth glowing in their eyes, give us not a hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, but three hundred and twenty four (!) "messianic prophecies", which are allegedly fulfilled by JC. Which rational thinking human being can deny the messiahship of JC when he is confronted with three hundred and twenty four messianic prophecies, fulfilled by JC? Why is it that those blinded, stiff-necked, stubborn Jews keep on refusing to accept a few extra Gods? Let's face it: If one God is good, than two gods is twice as good, and three gods, the Father, the son & the holy ghost, is three times as good. Why settle for one when you can have three for the price of one? Maybe the answer to these burning questions lays in the fact that some people actually bother to read those "prophecies". Let us take a look at the "messianic prophecies", presented to us by the honest, God fearing, truth loving, Baptists. The prophecies can be accessed through the homepage of the "Hope of Israel Baptist mission", to be found here: http://hopeofisrael.net... On the left side of the page is a link with the heading "324 messianic prophecies!". Click on it, and you will end up at the "324 messianic prophecies!" The first one they start off with: "Gen. 3:15.....He will bruise Satan's head.....Heb. 2:14, 1 Jn. 3:18" The claim is that the following verses are a messianic prophecy: "The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." The fact of the matter is that nowhere here is spoken about a messiah, nowhere does it speak about a king or a ruler like it does in the genuine messianic prophecies, here is not spoken about a descendent of David or his father Jesse, the word "messiah" is not used here, there is not spoken here about a redeemer who is going to save the whole world from its sins; those things only exist in the minds of brainwashed Christians when they read this text. Unfortunately I'm again forced to cut of the argument here, I'm running out of space, but the whole article about this deception as it is brought by many Christians and also by my opponent here can be found here: https://sites.google.com... So there are no 300, no hundred, and no 50 messianic prophecies. What does exist, is hundreds of OT texts which have no bearing on the messiah whatsoever, which are ripped out of context, and falsely brought as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC. But that is of course lies and deceit. |
39 | beb2c569-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States I will have to pass this round. I do not have enough time to post my opening arguments. I will post them in the third round. Please award my opponent conduct. Thank you. |
34 | f1e11ba4-2019-04-18T16:21:52Z-00008-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | goku vs superman goku stops mad carzy superman lost to batman aquaman and muhammad ali goku would beat him #LanternCanWhupSuperman To Summarize my argument Goku is a born fighter, and has the power, speed and strength to take down Superman. Gokus techniques such as Ki blasts and Maniuplation, Instant Transmission, Combat sense, the Dragon Fist, and Telekensis trump Superman's abilites. Goku's destructive power is insane, and rivaled by cosmic beings and God's. Goku can blow up planets with ease, and could blow up a large portion of the Galaxy at full power SSJ3. Superman has never come close to that power. When Goku can use Ki to bolster there already insane hitting power, Goku literally shakes the planet by the shockwaves his punches produces. Goku's combat speed and Instant Transmission are way beyond Superman's level, showing how in base he can go FTL the Super Sayain forms would be even faster. In a fight, combat speed Goku is unmatched. Goku martial arts and fighting techniques completely surpass Superman. Frieza can survive Namek exploding with his body chopped in half, SSJ Goku can do it easily. Combined these factors and it concludes to Goku beating Superman. Anything at SSj2 level or above is enough to put down Superman. Goku is a galaxy buster - but while it's never shown him destroying Galaxies, it's been stated by many characters that he and his (later) enemies could destroy whole Galaxies. What we do know for a fact however, is that Goku could destroy planets easily in ANY form; Combat skill. While some writers have attempted to give Superman some training in martial arts, his fighting style is still primarily that of a brawler. It would be a huge stretch to call Superman an "expert" at martial arts (although some would argue that). In any event, Goku has a tremendous advantage in terms of technique over Superman * Combat speed. Pretty much all combat in DBZ (and the whole second half of the original as well) is portrayed at occuring at hyper speeds. The exact upper limit on just how fast is not really explored, but considering that most characters display the ability to dematerialize to move faster than would otherwise be physically possible, it's not unreasonable to believe it could reach light speeds. as in will show The entire fight occurs at those speeds. Superman, on the other hand, has shown mostly straight ahead attacks when speed blitzing. While it's understandable that some will think Superman has the speed advantage, in my estimation at short range Goku has a sizable advantage-- even against the mighty Silver Age Superman. * Energy projection. Goku has matched energy against beings who have shown the power to destroy worlds (some of them effortlessly) and gone millions of times beyond that inner power level. Whether that translates into millions of times that output or not is unclear, but assuming a small scale increase in output, Goku would still be capable of destroying pretty much any size world. This level of destructive force should be too great for Post-Crisis or even Modern Age Superman. Combat skill. While some writers have attempted to give Superman some training in martial arts, his fighting style is still primarily that of a brawler. It would be a huge stretch to call Superman an "expert" at martial arts (although some would argue that). In any event, Goku has a tremendous advantage in terms of technique over Superman Superman's heat ray vision does not compare favorably. * Energy sense. Goku is able to repress his power signature and evade detection. Superman has shown no such power. Goku would be warned of any sneak attack. * Dematerializing and Instant Transmission. Goku has repeatedly used this in combat to gain advantage or take away an opponent's advantage. It even works to negate Goku's greater than light speed long distance travel advantage. Ki Sense is the ability to detect a person's Ki from great distances. Goku can detect people across the planet with ease. Now it is unsure whether Goku would detect Superman's KI, but Ki is living aura, everyone has it. The average human has a Power Level of 5, and Goku could sense other alies from across the Galaxy. So sensing Superman's Ki wouldn't be any different. Also Superman can detect Goku with enhanced sense, so there would be no hiding on ether side. (Not that they would want to) Was able to pinpoint Bulma's KI out of billions of people on Earth http://imageshack.us... http://www.youtube.com... Additional Details, Saiyans CAN survive in space, reference Vegeta and Nappa destroying the planet Arlia from outer space. Goku could use the Spirit Bombalso the sprit bomb cam kill any thing instant Tranmission Goku's most versatile techniques. It's teleportation that can be used for multiple effects. It's so fast Goku can travel across the Galaxy and hit Namek in an instant. Now lets see The ship tog et to Namek img88.imageshack.us/img88/552/flytojupiter.jpg img684.imageshack.us/img684/3143/flytojupiter2.jpg img18.imageshack.us/img18/5880/flytojupiter3.jpg It took the Spaceship a couple of seconds to reach Jupiter and it takes light 32-54 minutes to reach Juptier from Earth. Therefore the Spaceship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster then Light Speed Travel And Since it took the ship over 10 days to get to Namek, and Goku traveled to Namek in an instant, from King kai's planet. Using the Instant Tranmission to travel across the galaxy, and between dimensons to Namek. His Instant Transmission speed is thousands of times faster then light, and can be used to cross dimensions between living and dead. This would be a huge factor and requires little to no Ki. Goku has trained to use it without putting a finger to his head. superman can move a planet goku can make a sprit bomb the size of a planet how would superman move that goku can draw power from the sun the same as superman also superman had help to move the planet and could only move it a bit with the JL with no help superman could not move it superman is weaker as his powers are from the sun a near infinare power sourse that goku could destroy even with the sun superman is no mach for goku superman is unable to destrory the earth with out the power of the sun while goku could with his own power superman has no combat ability and was beat by an non power karate kid even with the power of the sun And considering that the Earth"s atmosphere reflects and absorbs 2/3rds of all solar radiation Superman should only be capable of on the of have of what he would be able to do in space superman greates feat of moveing 1/3 of the earth with the jla even in space still the only way supeman could even stand a close to goku The IMP is an ability granted by the Speed Force and utilizing its power. As the flash called it, he's accessing speed heaven. The speed force is what allows the flash to run at light speed and protects him from the affects of moving that fast. Superman's strength comes from the sun, which is big an pretty much infinite, but there is only so much of that energy he can store in himself, even after a sundip. He has an upper limit. The Flash's relativistic punches come from E = MC". C is constant. And considering that the Flash can go faster than light, E is essentially infinite, making his mass and thus the power of his punch also infinite. In other words. Superman can punch really hard, and he can fly really fast, but his power is instant. He can't move fast enough to stop time, but the flash can. The flashs punch strength with the IMP is infinite. Superman could certainly do a speed strike, which is using the speed of travel to increase the mass of the punch, but he can't do the infinite mass punch because his power Is limited. The flash has access to the infinite speed force. http://static.comicvine.com... the question is who is faster goku or superman how fast is goku lets look http://static.comicvine.com... now how fast is that There is "true" invisibility, that happens when an object that moves faster than the speed of light. However this may not be possible if you know Einsteins theory of relativity ( E= mc2, where c=speed of light). As you move at or near the speed of light light, you mass becomes infinitely large, which means you would need an infinite source of increasing energy in order to keep moving. However Einsteins theory means nothing in comic context. He told me there is also the ability to be "invisible" to the eye and not be moving at the speed of light. This is an optical illusion-- the object is invisible if it moves faster than the eye/brain can process the images. Perception - the registration of physically present stimuli. We only see things that move every 1/24 of a second (we don't really see motion jut the illusion of movement, if it moves.... this is only the persistence of the previous images). If the object moves faster than 1/24th of a second, than it will be invisible to the human eye. I then I asked him, If someone was running down your street how fast they would have to be in order to be invisible to your eye's. He responded saying in order for something to be truly invisible to the human eye it would have to be moving at the speed of light. The thing that gives us the ability to see things, is the reflection of light upon objects. If someone or something was moving faster than light the would truly be invisible due to the fact that no light could reflect upon them. So yes, If something was running in front of you and they were invisible to your eye they would have to be running above the speed of light, other wise they wee never truly invisible in the first place it would only be an optical illusion. But to actualy BE invisible you would have to move faster than light http://imageshack.us...; goku is stronger faster and cooler |
3 | 7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00003-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Death penalty should be allowed Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic. |
50 | 4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00001-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument. |
2 | dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00000-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. You can point out all you want, but the comparison is valid. Both are considered recreational drugs. Marijuana is all natural, and helps with many ailments. It has been prescribed and freely ingested for hundreds of years or more. Not one death has been fully attributed to it at all. http://freecannabis.net... Prohibition of marijuana is comparable to that of alcohol in the early part of 1900s. People are going to do it, regardless of legality, if marijuana was legally available as an option other than alcohol, you would be essentially saving those lives from liver disease, alcoholism, and other short or long term effects of alcohol, in exchange for some slight memory loss, (which is why smart phones come in handy) good sleep, and a surge in sales at local cookie factories. For those states that have yet to legalize, the marijuana market belongs mainly to drug sellers that sell far worse chemicals along with it. Looking at Colorado, where it has become legal, crime rates have dropped, and jobs have been created. Since the first retail marijuana stores opened on January 1st, 2014, the state of Colorado has benefitted from a decrease in crime rates, a decrease in traffic fatalities, an increase in tax revenue and economic output from retail marijuana sales, and an increase in jobs. http://www.mintpressnews.com... Farmers are finally making a decent living now. Taxation of marijuana has helped build schools, and more. The age requirement helps keep the plant out of underage hands, when drug dealers have no age requirements, and young customers may be tempted to buy more dangerous drugs. The money from these deals usually go to buy guns, etc. Cartels get a lot of business from the black market, which is unavoidable due to the increase in useage, so keeping the sale illegal is ideal to them. The prison industry also gains plenty from prohibition of marijuana, because most people don't want to quit using, regardless of legality, resulting in overcrowded prison populations, most for as little as a single cannabis cigarette. It is for this reason America has the highest percentage of incarcerated people's in the world. Smoking the plant, while far less dangerous than cigarettes, provide the easiest, quickest release of thc, but with legalization, comes more innovative, safer techniques for intake, such as edibles and vaping. http://www.iflscience.com...https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Big pharmacy, which accounts for very serious side effects, will also take a paycut with the legalization of marijuana, which I'd like to point out to our voters you have dropped. Over half of American adults have at least tried marijuana. Over half of Americans at least think it's a good idea to legalize it. It's a creation of nature that has harmless side effects in most people, and to those who feel it dangerous, or decide they would like to keep their short term memory, only need to stay away from the plant. Did you know that the USFG prescribed a few people(and still supply to this day) several marijuana cigarettes every day? They know it has medical significance, even admitting that cannabis cures cancer in question 6 of the q&a section of the .gov link below, which is hypocritical.http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.cancer.gov...Doctors, lawyers, and business owners like myself smoke cannabis on a daily basis. While it's best done in privacy to unwind. Most of America thinks it's a good thing, it makes most people happy with very little dangers, if any. Notice how many time my opponent uses words like "may" or "could" and saying they don't know the long-term effects. We've been using this God given plant for centuries, is it possible that there are no long term effects? If you are scared of it, don't use it. Simple as that, but prohibition is not working right now, and we should learn from the areas that have legalized it, and move forward. Many states would have already done so I'm my opinion, if it weren't for the USFG. The government has a shortage of hackers, some of the smartest men and women on the planet in my honest opinion, because none of the best ones can pass a urinalysis for cannabis. So much for that whole brain killing argument.http://motherboard.vice.com... http://www.wsj.com... |
4 | 8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00002-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools I appreciate the chance to argue this topic. For semantic clarity, the two possible debate-friendly meanings of this debate's title read as follows: "Corporal punishment is being reintroduced to schools" - versus "no it isn't." "Corporal punishment should be reintroduced to schools" - versus "no it shouldn't." "Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools" is like saying "Flowers being picked." One cannot agree or disagree, the sentence is worded as hypothetical. Based on my opposition's first round arguments, until otherwise specified, I will assume he means to use the latter, *should be* phrasing. That said, although public schools do not typically practice corporal punishment, it was never legally un-introduced from schools. 1. Parents are entitled to corporal punishment "Corporal punishment of minors within domestic settings is still lawful in 49 of the United States. Delaware outlawed it as child abuse in 2012" http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Teachers are entitled to the same teaching methods as parents according to "In loco parentis," a legal doctrine adopted by both the United States and Britain. "this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent" http://en.wikipedia.org... A doctrine that was never removed cannot technically be reintroduced. To 'reintroduce' corporal punishment, we would have to first ban it, then reintroduce it. I argue that we should not reintroduce it because that would require us to take the time to unnecessarily ban it. |
3 | 3368dd56-2019-04-18T18:22:07Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | 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! |
13 | 688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00005-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | We should stop using fossil fuels!!! we should stop using fossil fuelw because its rly bad for the environment we are taught at school to stop this so we should stop itt! |
49 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER |
39 | a3568b53-2019-04-18T17:13:51Z-00005-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Raising Minimum Wage With minimum wage workers on strike across the country to raise the minimum wage, I am arguing against raising minimum wage as I do not believe it will help the impoverished. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00069-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land." [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. |
28 | 622af56b-2019-04-18T14:56:01Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized in the US Thanks for the debate, Mikal. I'll start with my case and finish with rebuttals. NOTE: "johns" are "guys who pay for sex."== Trafficking == (1) Experience shows that when prostitution is legalized, sex trafficking increases. [A, B, C, D, E, F] Even in Nevada. [G, H, O] This happens because legalization increases demand. Not enough women want to prostitute, so the only way to meet that demand is through trafficking.(2) Most "legal prostitutes" are trafficking victims. [E, O] Unfortunately, police can't do anything about that, because police can't distinguish legal prostitutes from trafficking victims, or legal pimps from traffickers. Police also can't arrest trafficking victims, which is a huge problem, because most trafficking victims don't seek help. Pimps manipulate victims to think they're not victims, or to think they'll be killed if they seek help. [I, J, O] So, the only effective way to rescue trafficking victims is arresting them for prostitution.== Violence ==(1) Prostitutes are lucky to get out with their lives. More prostitutes are murdered than any other group. The few that aren't still experience an extensive catalog of violence, including assault and rape. Their hair is pulled, faces ejaculated on; they are slapped, pinched, verbally abused, threatened, beaten, cut with knives, burned with cigarettes, and gang raped. Victims of torture describe similar acts. And like victims of torture, prostitutes report mouth and teeth injuries, vaginal bleeding, internal injuries, head injuries, and broken bones. The average life span for prostitutes is four years. [E, K, L](2) The psychological harm is just as bad. Prostitutes measure higher levels of PTSD than combat veterans and victims of torture. PTSD results from going through atrocities you cannot mentally sustain. And PTSD isn't the only concern. Studies show prostitutes are at heightened risk of depression, mania, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, dissociative disorders, and drug abuse. This psychological damage stems from the act itself. Prostituted women simply cannot avoid the trauma associated with constant sexual degradation, and with having one's body sold as a commodity. In fact, studies find no difference in PTSD levels between street prostitution and brothel prostitution, which shows that the trauma is intrinsic to the act itself. [E, K, L] (3) These results are not limited to illegal prostitution. Even prostitutes working where prostitution is legal, in brothels with so-called "safety policies," experience this extensive catalog of physical and psychological violence. The psychological harms are inherent, so no amount of improvement helps. And the physical harms also persist, because that's what the johns want, and they're willing to pay more for it. And prostitutes don't feel like they have a choice. And panic buttons usually fail. [E, K, L, M, O]== Rebuttal ==(1) RegulationRegulation doesn't reduce illegal prostitution. Over 90% of prostitution in Nevada is illegal. [B, G, H, M, O] Also, see my trafficking evidence from earlier. As Mikal notes, 73% of men will pay more for sex without a condom, and those men create a market for illegal prostitution. Regulating prostitution isn't going to change that.(2) SafetyFirst, since regulations don't reduce illegal prostitution, Mikal's "minimization" arguments regarding "safety" and "STDs" have no impact. Most prostitutes are still subject to all the harms. Second, "safety policies" don't work, because prostitution is inherently dangerous, degrading, and psychologically traumatic. [E, K, L, M, O](3) RapeIf legalization actually decreased rape, we'd see evidence of that in Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, and Nevada. But there isn't any such evidence. I'd argue that rape actually increases with legalization, because more prostitution means more prostitutes are raped. The reason we don't hear about it is because prostitutes almost never report rapes.Mikal's sources don't say otherwise. The study in [5, 6] used a regression model to analyze potential correlations between availability of prostitution and rape. The study made no claims about legalization actually reducing rape. Even worse, the study relied on the wrong definitions of rape (this fact was admitted in the study), and the study didn't consider unreported rapes (this fact completely skews the data). Taking those limitations into account, the correct interpretation of the data is that rapists target prostitutes over other women; other independent evidence supports that interpretation, including Mikal's [2] and [3]. When there's more prostitution available, more prostitutes get raped instead. Rape doesn't decrease, but reporting does, because prostitutes almost never report rapes.Mikal's [8] doesn't apply because it dealt with inadvertent decriminalization; Mikal's arguing for regulated legalization, which is completely different. Finally, Mikal's only other study -- the Queensland study -- is from 1959. It's completely outdated and therefore inapplicable to prostitution today.(4) CostsFirst, designating something as a crime shouldn't turn on enforcement costs and potential tax revenue. No one argues that trafficking, murder, or rape should be legal, even though legalizing them would generate massive savings. So too with prostitution. Money simply shouldn't factor into policy decisions about what to criminalize.Second, enforcement costs don't go down when prostitution is legal because legalization doesn't reduce illegal prostitution. If anything, enforcement costs go up, because trafficking increases.Third, Mikal's numbers are wrong. Mikal's [12] says the prostitution industry generates $14 billion a year. [12] There's no way to generate $20, $30, or $40 billion in taxes from an industry that only generates $14 billion. That's literally impossible. Mikal gets his numbers from [11], but [11] is wrong because (a) it assumes all illegal prostitution will be regulated, and (b) it assumes all prostitutes will earn at least $100,000 a year (i.e. earn just as much as the high-class prostitutes in Nevada). Both assumptions are wrong. Most prostitution would still be illegal, competition among brothels would bring prices down, and competition among states would bring tax rates down. So the actual tax revenue isn't even close to $20 billion. Of course, that's not surprising, since [11] isn't a credible source; it's just what some guy on the Internet said.(5) ConsentFirst, no amount of consent makes a crime acceptable, because the whole point of criminal laws is to determine which *choices* are acceptable to society. Murder, rape, and trafficking are crimes even if victims consent. So too with prostitution.Second, prostitutes don't actually consent because they have no real alternatives (or at least they feel like they have no real alternatives). Poverty, homelessness, and past sexual abuse are the top reasons women are prostituted. Pimps often recruit illegal immigrants -- especially Central American women -- into prostitution by stealing their money and threatening deportation. And many women are simply beaten until they "consent" to prostitution. The so-called "choice" is thus only a choice between two evils: homelessness or prostitution, starving family or prostitution, deportation or prostitution, violent beatings or prostitution. Of course, that's not a real "choice." Most prostitutes want to leave prostitution but they feel they can't or don't know how. [E, K, L, M, N, O]This is not just like every other job. Prostitutes don't decide to be prostitutes instead of doctors, engineers, lawyers, pilots. Those options don't exist for prostituted women. When intereviewed, prostitutes say prostitution chose them. And they say they'd prefer doing anything else if they could. In Nevada, there are countless stories of legal prostitutes who speak to the public "glowingly of how much fun prostitution was, how rich they were getting, how glamorous their life was." And then -- when the pimps aren't looking -- they ask for "help," "saying she was there under captivity, that he had a gun, had threatened her life," and so on. [O] I urge everyone to read, or at least skim, [O]. It shows that prostitutes don't consent; they're tricked, coerced, and brainwashed by pimps.In many ways, prostituted women are like battered women. Like battered women, prostituted women depend on pimps economically, fear for their lives, and don't know how to get out. So they stay in prostitution just as battered women stay in their relationships. Think about it this way: Would we say that a concentration camp survivor who collaborated with the guards to get food and stay alive had consented to his abuse? Would we say an enslaved African in the Americas who became a house servant had done so voluntarily? No. To say there was choice there is absurd. And prostitution is no different. == Conclusion ==Prostitution is inherently degrading. "It is the mouth, the vagina, the rectum, penetrated by a penis, sometimes hands, sometimes objects, by one man and then another and then another and then another and then another." Prostitutes don't want to have sex with those men. They do it solely because they're forced (literally or from financial necessity). And as a result, the entirety of their life is reduced to a few sexual orifices. The attendant harms -- harms on par with torture -- cannot be disputed. And legalization only increases those harms, because it makes enforcement harder while increasing trafficking. Only the pimps and johns benefit.[A] http://tinyurl.com...[B] Mary Jones, Making Sex Work[C] http://tinyurl.com...[D] http://tinyurl.com...[E] http://tinyurl.com...[F] http://tinyurl.com...[G] http://tinyurl.com...[H] Melissa Farley, Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada[I] http://tinyurl.com...[J] http://tinyurl.com...[K] http://tinyurl.com...[L] http://tinyurl.com...[M] http://tinyurl.com...[N] http://tinyurl.com...[O] http://tinyurl.com... |
16 | 74e915ea-2019-04-18T12:17:43Z-00002-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drug Legalization Thanks, Danielle. =Legalization vs. Decriminalization= This is where the debate is going to be decided. As I see it, Danielle has two good arguments in favor of legalization over decriminalization: That the power of the drug cartel would decrease when faced with legal competition, and that legalized drugs could be "safe, legal, and taxed." I will address these two claims and in the process will show why some kind of decriminalization similar to the Portugal model is a superior policy. Re: CartelLet's talk first about the cartels and their monopoly on drugs. First of all, it's deeply questionable what this "safe and legal" competition would look like or if it would even materialize. Contra Danielle's repeated and absurd claim that alcohol is more dangerous than meth or heroin, big pharma is not going to open itself up to the legal, ethical, and social ramifications of marketing and selling recreational drugs that ruin bodies and lives. You cannot manufacture "safe" meth. It's probable that there would not be that meaningful of a deviation from the status quo, except without drug laws there's no pretense to arrest violent gang members before their turf wars mow down innocent civilians. But how serious is the problem of drug violence? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only around 4% of homicides are drug related, or around 600 deaths[1]--mostly against other drug dealers, so no great loss. Heroin killed 13,000 people in 2015. Other opioids killed close to 10,000. Prescription drug abuse killed 17,500[2]. Cocaine killed 5,800 in 2014. Meth killed 3,700[3]. It goes on and on, and this doesn't even mention the tremendous $193 billion social cost associated with the ruined bodies and lives of drug abusers--a number that is dwarfed by the incredible cost of more widespread *legal* drugs. Moreover, drug usage itself contributes greatly to crime. According to the same BJS report, 19% of victims of violent crime perceived their attackers to be under the influence of drugs on their own or in combination with alcohol, a pretty staggering statistic when you consider that only around 5 million people, 1.5% of the population, use non-marijuana illicit drugs[4].It's very easy to see how even slightly increased usage would outweigh this impact. And usage would clearly go up. Danielle outright conceded the economic theory explaining why usage would increase. She dropped and therefore conceded the argument that alcohol prohibition actually cut usage in half--and reversed a worrying trend of increasing alcoholism. Her source that argued how Opium use in China didn't increase is embarrassingly bad because it only looked at import data. I'm shocked Harvard would allow their name to be used with such a shoddy study--imports eventually did decrease, but that was only because domestic production increased by 118 times, from 300 tons before the first Opium War to 35,300 tons in 1906[5]. If China failed to effectively prohibit Opium, it was only because of their famously weak central government. By the 1930s, 10% of the population was addicted to Opium. Forced rehabilitation for addicts and death for dealers drove that number to 0[6]. Bans work, and Danielle's own arguments prove this. Danielle concedes that Marijuana use in Colorado went up drastically after legalization, but argues that use of other drugs wouldn't because users understand the risks. Except she also argues that alcohol is worse than meth or heroin. If prohibition doesn't work and people are educated enough to know the risks, why is an incredibly destructive, literally worse than heroin, but legal drug like alcohol used regularly by over half the population while the still widely prohibited but innocuous Marijuana is only used by 13%? It just doesn't add up. Drug use would massively increase if they were all legal and freely available. All of this ignores that forced rehabilitation would actually *decrease* use. Danielle notes in her first round how Portugal went from having one of the worst rates of drug overdose in Europe to the second lowest and that drug use continually declined. This isn't due to drugs becoming heavily regulated and "safe", because trafficking and manufacturing are still illegal in Portugal. It happened because the country pivoted towards a more humane approach to drug use and forced addicts into mandatory rehabilitation. Danielle wants us to be allowed to force addicts ruining their lives and bodies and becoming societal leeches into rehab only AFTER they've already hurt someone else. With legalization the only question is how much usage goes up. With decriminalization we are instead asking how much it goes *down*. It's incredibly obvious which is the better policy.Re: Regulation and safetyI don't totally disagree with this point. Sure, some deadly drugs that have horrific effects on the body might become marginally safer if they were regulated. How marginal? We don't know because Danielle has failed to provide any numbers, but all the regulation in the world cannot create "safe" heroin. Carfentanil, a drug 10,000 times more potent than Morphine that is used to tranquilize elephants[7], is never going to be safe for human consumption. How is it even possible to "regulate" such a thing? At the end of the day any increase in drug safety is going to be massively outweighed by the costs of increased consumption. And unlike decriminalization, regulation does nothing to DECREASE drug use, which ultimately leads to greater public safety. Portugal shows us that we don't need to make drugs freely available and then cross our fingers, hoping that we made them as safe as possible. We can drive drug overdoses and addiction down to the vanishing point by forcing users to get the help they need BEFORE it becomes a huge problem.Danielle vastly exaggerates how easy drugs are to get in this country. How many people even know what the deep web is, or how to use it? It's difficult to fully stamp out drugs but it's obvious that the threat of legal ramifications all throughout the supply chain obviously decreases both use and availability. Marijuana was always easy to get, but use still skyrocketed after legalization and has doubled nationwide as legalization and medical Marijuana created legal avenues for consumption[8]. Danielle argues that due to regulation, the price of drugs will actually go up after legalization. This is absurd. A blanket prohibition on production backed up by years in prison is far more costly to producers than regulations dictating drug purity. We know what prohibition does to the price of drugs--an analysis from the NCBI found that the price of alcohol, a drug that easily lends itself to long term storage and where millions of gallons already existed, tripled or quadrupled after the 18th amendment was passed[9]. Widespread availability increases the use of even hard drugs. Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the worlds Opium is produced, leads every other country in opium usage, and it's not even close[10].Danielle argues that we could decrease drug use through taxation. I'm glad that she agrees with me that increasing the costs drives usage down, but the costs of criminalization are far higher than she could reasonably expect a sin tax to be. The average tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.69[11], less than 30% of the average cost of $5.51 a pack[12]. Criminalization drives the price of drugs up 300-400% without even considering the costs associated with getting caught. A tax this large would easily drive people back into the black market, negating her argument. Ultimately the state could never hope to recoup the horrific social and financial costs of drug addiction through taxation, especially after legalization drives an increase in use. Danielle also has no compelling answer to prescription drug abuse. She supports the regulation of Oxycontin or cancer drugs to try and make sure they're used properly. I'm surprised that Danielle doesn't see that this is the exact same rationale behind prohibition. Removing laws PROHIBITING certain people taking these drugs is a part of legalization. By advocating that we PROHIBIT people from taking medicinal drugs without a prescription Danielle is engaging in a MASSIVE contradiction and violating her own framework. Are we allowing the consumption of all drugs as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else or are we not? If we followed Danielles framework and legalized all drug use, we have to look to my impacts of self medication which kills tens of thousands of people around the world. Why should chemotherapy drugs be sold to non cancer patients?We're fortunate in that history has given us multiple experiments to draw conclusions from. We know that legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes are used far more often than even comparatively innocuous illicit drugs like Marijuana, a drug whose usage has rapidly increased as the legal restrictions have lessened. We know that Opium legalization in China was a total failure, with a staggering 10% of the population becoming addicts. We know that prohibition in the United States significantly decreased alcohol consumption. If we're interested in decreasing usage all examples of legalization have been manifest failures. On the other hand, we know that decriminalization in Portugal was a huge success by almost any metric and succeeded in driving usage and overdoses down. This is because users were legally FORCED to get help while the supply remained low because manufacturers and sellers were still punished for their crimes. Again, because it warrants repeating, the last time Opium was legalized in a country 1 in 10 eventually became addicted. There is absolutely nothing Danielle can possibly offer to outweigh even the RISK of tens of millions of new addicts, especially when we have another workable policy solution. The US should follow Portugal's example and implement policies that have proven effective. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... |
8 | 47e4d062-2019-04-18T18:02:31Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Why abortion should be legal Abortion should be legal because the fetus is in the woman"s body so therefore the government should not dictate what she should do with her own body. If a woman becomes pregnant and decides that she does not want to have children than why should the government force her to have it? Conservatives argue that the woman should have been responsible by thinking before becoming pregnant. Well here"s my argument, Even if a woman thinks before becoming pregnant she still might change her mind about having a child. If a woman becomes pregnant without thinking beforehand than she made a mistake and she should be able to fix that mistake by having an abortion. If the government does not allow a woman to have an abortion then they are forcing her to have a child. if a woman does not have an abortion than she is going to have a child. If the government does not allow her to have an abortion than that would mean that once a woman gets pregnant she has to have a child. So the government would be forcing her to have a child if they were to ban abortion. This would not be the right thing for the government to do. The woman should be allowed to choose what she wants to do with the fetus because it is in her body. |
5 | 8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00002-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security You started off your argument with the following contentions: "Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. " First off, you're right, social security will not advance us as a country. However, neither is it necessarily a bad thing. Many people, this might come off as rude, are stupid. They don't know how to invest, so if left to their own devices, as you suggested, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Social Security was started for this reason. Second, You said that America will not be able to support it. This is not necessarily true. While more people will be retiring than employing, you have to take into account that you are referring to the baby boom generation, where fewer kids were born. Unless we have another generation like that, Social Security could be sustained, so long as people actually start to get jobs. The system for Social Security is sound, the problem is the people. Without it, people would complain that the government isn't helping them if they aren't working, but but with it, no one works, they retire early or something, if people got jobs and kept them, and didn't retire at a young age, then we could sustain it. The problem is when people aren't keeping their jobs for a long time, or when they retire early. Third, you said that people should be able to invest their own money. I would like to point out that Social Security is not mandatory, as stated in Wikipedia: "Obtaining a Social Security number for a child who is not working is voluntary. Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program. " So if you desire, you can go invest elsewhere, it isn't necessary to be a part of the program, most people just choose to be. You said that the money is not invested or saved at all, but in Wikipedia, it says: "When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U. S. Government bonds". So there is money saved, not all of it is immediately spent. And you're right, it can't be fixed, because like I said, the system is sound. it's the people who retire early, and possibly how much is being given out that is the problem. Now be honest. If you were given (for example) an extra twenty thousand dollars per year due to no Social Security, would you invest it? For you maybe yes, maybe no. I would. But a lot of people wouldn't. They would spend it. Then they would retire and have no money, and complain that the government isn't helping them out after their retirement. |
42 | d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00006-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Soccer is a better sport than Hockey I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response! |
14 | c7379de-2019-04-18T13:02:19Z-00007-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia Welcome to the debate, and I remind you, the rules explicitly say that arguing homosexuality is bad/unnatural is 100% banned. Well, I found a report that says that 80% of pedophiles are gay/bisexual, but this has nothing to say that 80% of homosexuals or bisexuals are pedophiles. Anyway, my source debunks it and contains an excerpt from what I believe you got your source from. You argued that pedophilia is a sexual orientation in one of your debates. http://www.debate.org... So, can you have two sexual orientations? The logical answer is no. From my source (http://www.dailykos.com...) "Fischer cites a study that says 86% of men who molest boys identify themselves as gay or bisexual with no breakdown of gay or bisexual perpetrators. The study Fischer references is strongly criticized by the consensus of experts in this field. The paper he's referencing is Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86. The paper does claim in passing that 86% of molesters of boys identified as gay or bisexual, but the paper does not describe how this data was gathered, and how it ascertained the sexual orientation of these men." So, there is no way to determine HOW this data was obtained, and it is both phrased incorrectly, and there is no way to determine the validity of an argument that has no source backing it up. And, many pedophiles assault boys. Does that make them gay? No more than it makes a homosexual who has a heterosexual life heterosexual. Same source. "Pedophiles are attracted, primarily, to children. The sex of those children matter less than that they are children. The sex of victim has more to do with access than sexual orientation." In the book Mental Disorders of the New Millennium (2006), author and psychology professor Thomas Plante writes: "Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasons that include easier access to boys ... pregnancy fears with female victims ... homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes " And, then there's this Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category " those with a more or less exclusive interest in children " have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development. By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children. Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." And they tried YET AGAIN. And they failed. "In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989)." Same source. Therefore, all scientific evidence states that homosexuals have no predisposition to pedophilia, and your own debate says pedophilia is a sexual orientation. So, at the risk of violating my own rules, my opponent cites an incorrect statistic, rephrased from a paper from 1921, that has no credibility and no sources backing it up. I now pass the buck to Con |
8 | 984c99de-2019-04-18T15:23:08Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abotion should be legal 1. Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. 2. Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs. 3. The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion 4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive. 5. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead. 6. Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion. 7. Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time. 8. Making abortion illegal is also a class struggle since the rich can always go to other places where it is legal & have an abortion whilst the poor cannot do this, but have to resort to unsafe abortions which can lead to their death. 9. Making abortion illegal is more or less compulsory pregnancy which contradicts the quest & fight for freedom. 10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency. 11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right" 12. Personhood begins at birth, not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (fetus), not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when an abortion is performed. 13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. 14. The anti-abortion position is usually based on religious beliefs and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law. 15. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman"s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000, whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. 16. Access to abortion is necessary because contraceptives are not always readily available. Women need a doctor's prescription to obtain many birth control methods, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, and the diaphragm. 17. Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to bring babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions to full term. 18. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse. 20. A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. Having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. 21. Abortion reduces crime. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies, and since unwanted babies are often raised in poverty, their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood are increased. 22. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby? 23. We get right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness when we are born. he fetus does not have these rights until it is born. So abortion is not murder & abortion does not go against the rights of a fetus since it does not have any until born. 24. Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy. This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive. 25. If someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal 26. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 27. Being a mother is just one option for women.* Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 28. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. Abortion should be part of a country's contraception policy. People should plan their families & society must allow women to end unwanted pregnancies, in order to deal with failures of birth control. Some methods of contraception in fact amount to abortion during the very earliest stage of a pregnancy. Abortion should be legal but discouraged. Legal simply because it is a choice, and what grows inside your body is yours. But discouraged because there are other more effective ways to prevent pregancy than abortion like contraception. |
17 | 21ae9089-2019-04-18T17:38:28Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal. Second round is for initial arguments. Third round is for rebuttals and defense. Fourth round is to defend your case and conclude. You will give the reason you should win this debate in the 4th round. |
28 | 924ff298-2019-04-18T15:27:17Z-00007-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution. Rebuttals should occur in Round 3 . The Case from Morality- It is wrong to ban prostitution as it is not inherently an immoral behaviour and this is because it doesn't include the initiation of force . A sexual act between one person and another in which one person agrees to pay for the service is a voluntarily relationship , a contract . It is possible for one of the people included in the act to end up with an STD this is however the result of the person being irresponsible and choosing to have sex and taking that risk. It is my opinion that we should stop making excuses for irresponsible behaviour as this is counter-productive . Unless my opponent also advocates for people not being aloud to eat foods that contain high-fat , high-sugar and high-salt content he cannot make the argument that we should not legalise prostitution because of the spread of STD's . Not mentioning the fact that if there was a legal market for prostitution it would be safer than the current one. The Case from safety- As it has been shown through the alcohol prohibition in 1920s and early 1930s when you criminalize certain parts of culture crime increases . 'In a study of more than thirty major U. S cities during the Prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24 percent. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9 percent, homicides by 12.7 percent, assaults and battery rose by 13 percent, drug addiction by 44.6 percent, and police department costs rose by 11.4 percent. This was largely the result of "black-market violence" and the diversion of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the Prohibition movement's hope that outlawing alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to Prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations. ' -Charles Hanson Towne (1923). The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States. New York: Macmillan. p. 159–62. Prostitution has been a part of human culture for a long time and we haven't seen it end . The fact that it is illegal in so many nations means that there has to be a black market and this black market cannot be regulated which leads to poor management and violence . The Economist says (. http://www.economist.com...) ' Governments should seize the moment to rethink their policies. Prohibition, whether partial or total, has been a predictable dud. It has singularly failed to stamp out the sex trade. Although prostitution is illegal everywhere in America except Nevada, old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). And prohibition has ugly results. Violence against prostitutes goes unpunished because victims who live on society's margins are unlikely to seek justice, or to get it. The problem of sex tourism plagues countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where the legal part of the industry is both tightly circumscribed and highly visible. ' If prostitution was legal we could regulate the market in ways to make prostitution safer such as require prostitutes every couple of years to test for STD's. Marjan Wijers in her article in the book Global Sex Workers wrote "Criminalizing the sex industry creates ideal conditions for rampant exploitation and abuse of sex workers. .. [I]t is believed that trafficking in women, coercion and exploitation can only be stopped if the existence of prostitution is recognized and the legal and social rights of prostitutes are guaranteed. " To this I can only add that I agree 100% . The case from Economics- We already addressed Morality and Safety . Now let's address legalising prostitution from an economic stand point . If prostitution was made legal the market itself could be taxed and this would produce large amounts of money for the government . 'Another benefit of legalizing prostitution resides in the ability to generate tax revenue. Once the applicant has successfully obtained licensing she may work at a brothel, enjoying legal income taxable at the appropriate rate. The average annual income of an employee at one Nevada brothel working only one week per month is at least $100,000 (Ayres). Based on this figure, each legally licensed sex worker would contribute more than $20,000 in federal income taxes per year. ' -(. http://people.emich.edu...) There is massive potential for a new booming industry and not just in the USA , this new field of legal work could provide jobs and money not only for those seeking employment but it would also help the state through tax revenue . Let me reference back to the quote from the Economist that I included in my case from safety - 'old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). '. These are large sums of money which can improve the conditions of many countries economically. In addition as this is my last argument I would like to point out that legalising prostitution would also lower rape rates . Legalising prostitution could make it easier to access and make it more available . 'If prostitution were legalized in the United States it is rational toassume that prices would resemble those in the Netherlands, this would result in an I of80 and a decrease in the rape rate of 10 per 100,000. The population of the United Statesif roughly 275 million so this should result is a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapesper year. ' -(. http://www.independent.org...) I hope that I have made a well thought-out argument for legalising prostitution and I wish good luck to Con. |
21 | aa3d5131-2019-04-18T15:24:35Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Mankind Is Not the Main Cause of Global Warming Thanks to subutai for posting an excellent opening round! I'm looking forward to this debate, as I am sure it will be an interesting one!So to kick this thing off I'd like to start by providing the readers with a quick road map of my case and how I aim to negate the given resolution.What I am going to do is set up the basis of a cause effect relationship between greenhouse gases (Such as CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor) and a warming trend, and then confirm this relationship with corroborating corollaries. This will prove that increased atmospheric GHG concentrations to create a warming effect on the climate.Next, I will begin to discuss why humanities effect on the climate creates an increased concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, thus creating an anthropogenic cause for global warming.Then, I will establish why the current warming trend cannot be due primarily to natural causes.Finally, to seal in these arguments, I will discuss the consensus of the scientific community as a whole regarding anthropogenic global warming.Con's CaseI. The Greenhouse effect and Greenhouse GasesTo begin, let's examine what exactly makes a green house gas, a green house gas. Everyone has likely heard of the most common GHGs: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Water Vapor (H2O). Why, though, do these gases cause a warming effect, while the gases most prevalent in our atmosphere, Nitrogen and Oxygen, cause no warming? A) Di-pole momentExamine the following diagram describing the molecular structures of the gases above. So here we have CO2, Methane, Water Vapor, Nitrogen, and Oxygen in either 3d models, or Lewis structures. The thing we must pay closest attention to is their molecular shape (VSEPR Theory). Carbon Dioxide is bent. Methane is tetrahedral. H2O is Bent. Nitrogen and oxygen, however, are Linear diatomic molecules [1].Now, every element has a different level of electronegativity. In an atom with an electronegativity disparity, a dipole moment forms [2]. This is essentially the formation of a magnetic field direction. CO2 and H2O due to their bent asymmetrical shapes have Dipole moments. The dipole moment "points" from the more electronegative towards the less electronegative. More +--> LessWhen an atom is struck by particular wavelengths of infrared light, the bonds in the atom begin to "vibrate" there are many kinds of vibration that can occur (bending, stretching, etc). [3] This causes the molecules to shift around, and in greenhouse gases, the dipole moment is shifted. Now atoms like N2 and O2 have no dipole moment, and no amount of shifting disrupts their symmetry. CO2 and H2O always have their dipole moment shifted by molecular vibration. Methane, due to the complexity of tetrahedral molecular shape, can undergo several vibrations that disrupt the symmetry of the molecule, and cause dipole moments to form.When a dipole moment is shifted or formed, much energy is released as heat. This is what happens in greenhouse gases [4].This is why greenhouse gases heat the earth when they are present in the atmosphere. Light from the sun strikes the molecule, and the infrared spectra that result in molecular vibration release heat energy into the atmosphere. Every single one of the billions of GHGs in the atmosphere are each acting as individual heat generators, catching and trapping energy from the sun, and heating the earth.B) Corollaries (Paleoclimate)Paleoclimates have historically been a major focal point of many debates on anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, I will preempt these arguments, so that time may be saved in the rebuttals. I will also reestablish the cause that I have described previously, and corroborate through corollaries.Many climate change skeptics have claimed that there is "No historic correlation" between the presence of green-house gases and global temperature. According to Royers 2006 [4] the data previously observed on the phanerzoic era has been contaminated, as it has not been adjusted for pH, which affects the molecular shape, atmospheric concentration, dipole moment, and molecular vibration potential of CO2. Quote Royer, "the temperature data correlate strongly with both the record of continental gla-ciation and atmospheric CO2". Furthermore, the famous Vostok Ice Cores show that "there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." [5]During the cenzoic period as well, CO2 was the driving force of Global warming, cite Hansen and Sato [6].II. Climate Sensitivity/CarbonAnother aspect of global warming that one must consider is "Climate sensitivity." Climate sensitivity is essentially the amount of expected change in global temperature as a result of increased retention of radiation (via GHGs). [7] Essentially, climate sensitivity tells us how much the temperature will change, given a certain amount of CO2 concentration increase [8] [10]. The reason that certain paleoclimates were not nearly as warm given the increased concentration of CO2 was due to lower climate sensitivity [9].Current studies have established an accepted measurement of modern climate sensitivity (a range between 1-4.1 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2). This number is accepted by both supporters and skeptics of global warming [11].Furthermore, to preempt a rebuttal on the presence of water vapor concentrations, it has been observed that global humidity is increasing [12] [13].A) Carbon Cycle, atmospheric CO2, and "Tipping the Pot"A common rebuttal against the anthropogenic climate change case is the relative smallness of man-made CO2 compared to natural concentrations. The problem with this argument, is that it observes all carbon, rather than only atmospheric CO2. Carbon that is not in the atmosphere cannot affect climate change, and does not contribute to global warming. It can be seen that man-made CO2 almost always remains in the atmosphere, as the natural equilibrium of the earths carbon cycle is upset by the introduction of artificial CO2 And now in the industrial age where CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere in a myriad of ways, we can see that atmospheric CO2 levels are at a record level. Then, as GHGs warm the Earth, positive feedback loops occur. Thus, humanity has "tipped the pot."B) Positive FeedbackPositive feedback comes in many forms in climate change. The problem with global warming, is that said warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. [14]These kinds of emissions are referred to as "indirect emissions" as humans did not directly produce these GHG emissions, they are directly responsible for the factors that resulted in this emission. This emission also comes from other human practices, such as deforestation, and pollution of the ocean.III. What makes anthropogenic warming different from natural warming?The key difference between the current modern global warming, and previous eras of natural warming, is that the current warming period is undoubtedly the fastest in the Earth's history. "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history." The Global scientific community has reached a 97% consensus that the current trend cannot be accounted for by natural forces. 18 scientific associations have examined and produced data on the climate, and have stated "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]This is not an appeal to authority, as every single one of these quotes a backed by countless empirically verified, and peer reviewed studies. This is not a claim made by a single scientist, this is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.A) Atmospheric Carbon Levels Atmospheric carbon levels, as previously mentioned, have never been this high. Record breaking levels of CO2 (a known GHG) have acted upon the Earth. Never before have atmospheric carbon levels been seen at this level. Natural CO2 cycles cannot account for this warming. Natural warming cycles of this Earth cannot account for how rapidly the earth is heating.IIII. Preponderance of evidenceThe evidence that suggest the reality of anthropogenic is, simply put, insurmountable. The weight of the evidence collected and scrutinized that points to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, when compared to the evidence presented against is like comparing the weight of a blue whale to the weight of a vole. Consider the following famous "Powell Charts."Peer reviewed climatology articles 1991-2012 Peer reviewed studies 2013 This isn't simply just scientists saying "I think anthropogenic global warming is real!"This is thousands of experts performing countless experiments, collecting endless data that they, as experts, have critically analyzed, and have found that the data demonstrates definitively that man-made global warming exists, and is the driving force behind climate change.SummaryThere is no room in the scientific community for climate change deniersSources in comments. |
24 | da3b006-2019-04-18T15:10:30Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Flat Tax Rate I mean this is gonna be b*tchy but idc. I don't see why I should have a debate tied simply because my opponent cannot refute my case for whatever reason. Had he PM'd me, maybe I would be chill. Actually I probably would have if he told me when he first needed to FF. But now we have gone multiple rounds and I am the only one who presented a strong case. I urge a Pro vote. |
31 | 14a8e56e-2019-04-18T11:15:33Z-00000-000 | Is obesity a disease? | There is only one human disease Easy win? Really? There are more than 80 different types of diseases according the the CDC, Benaroya Research Institute, Etc. If there is only one disease, Why are symptoms different for every disease? Why is the fatality rate different? Why do different diseases affect people differently? Why is an HIV virus cell different from a cancer cell? |
10 | 10cdf65f-2019-04-18T12:30:37Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines are needed and do not cause Autism Abstract Although child vaccination rates remain high, some parental concern persists that vaccines might cause autism. Three specific hypotheses have been proposed: (1) the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining, which allows the entrance of encephalopathic proteins; (2) thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system; and (3) the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system. We will discuss the genesis of each of these theories and review the relevant epidemiological evidence. A worldwide increase in the rate of autism diagnoses"likely driven by broadened diagnostic criteria and increased awareness"has fueled concerns that an environmental exposure like vaccines might cause autism. Theories for this putative association have centered on the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, thimerosal, and the large number of vaccines currently administered. However, both epidemiological and biological studies fail to support these claims. MMR On 28 February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, and colleagues [1] published a paper in The Lancet that described 8 children whose first symptoms of autism appeared within 1 month after receiving an MMR vaccine. All 8 of these children had gastrointestinal symptoms and signs and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia revealed on endoscopy. From these observations, Wakefield postulated that MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually nonpermeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development. Several issues undermine the interpretation by Wakefield et al. [1] of this case series. First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Because W64;50,000 British children per month received MMR vaccine between ages 1 and 2 years"at a time when autism typically presents"coincidental associations were inevitable. Indeed, given the prevalence of autism in England in 1998 of 1 in 2000 children [2], W64;25 children per month would receive a diagnosis of the disorder soon after receiving MMR vaccine by chance alone. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third, gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides. Fourth, measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Indeed, a recent study by Hornig et al. [3] found that the measles vaccine virus genome was not detected more commonly in children with or without autism. Fifth, putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. In contrast, the genes that have been associated with autism spectrum disorder to date have been found to code for endogenous proteins that influence neuronal synapse function, neuronal cell adhesion, neuronal activity regulation, or endosomal trafficking [4]. Although no data supporting an association between MMR vaccine and autism existed and a plausible biological mechanism was lacking, several epidemiologic studies were performed to address parental fears created by the publication by Wakefield et al. [1] (table 1). Fortunately, several features of large-scale vaccination programs allowed for excellent descriptive and observational studies"specifically, large numbers of subjects, which generated substantial statistical power; high-quality vaccination records, which provided reliable historical data; multinational use of similar vaccine constituents and schedules; electronic medical records, which facilitated accurate analysis of outcome data; and the relatively recent introduction of MMR vaccine in some countries, which allowed for before and after comparisons. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Ecological studies.Researchers in several countries performed ecological studies that addressed the question of whether MMR vaccine causes autism. Such analyses employ large databases that compare vaccination rates with autism diagnoses at the population level. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992 who were identified by computerized health records from 8 health districts [5]. Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed. Further, MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population. Also, investigators did not observe a clustering of autism diagnoses relative to the time that children received MMR vaccine, nor did they observe a difference in age at autism diagnosis between those vaccinated and not vaccinated or between those vaccinated before or after 18 months of age. These authors also found no differences in autism rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children when they extended their analysis to include a longer time after MMR exposure or a second dose of MMR [6]. Also in the United Kingdom, researchers performed a time-trend analysis using the General Practice Research Database"a high-quality, extensively validated electronic medical record with virtually complete vaccination data [7]. More than 3 million person-years of observation during 1988"1999 confirmed an increase in autism diagnoses despite stable MMR vaccination rates. In California, researchers compared year-specific MMR vaccination rates of kindergarten students with the yearly autism case load of the California Department of Developmental Services during 1980"1994 [8]. As was observed in the United Kingdom, the increase in the number of autism diagnoses did not correlate with MMR vaccination rates. In Canada, researchers estimated the prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder with respect to MMR vaccination in 27,749 children from 55 schools in Quebec [9]. Autism rates increased coincident with a decrease in MMR vaccination rates. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied, including a strict diagnosis of autism. Additional population-based studies considered the relationship between MMR vaccine and the "new variant" form of autism proposed by Wakefield et al. [1]"specifically, developmental regression with gastrointestinal symptoms. Although it is difficult to analyze such a phenomenon when it is unclear that one exists (which complicates the formulation of a case definition), conclusions may be gleaned from the data with respect to developmental regression alone (i.e., autism irrespective of coincident bowel problems). In England, researchers performed a cross-sectional study of 262 autistic children and demonstrated no difference in age of first parental concerns or rate of developmental regression by exposure to MMR vaccine [10]. No association between developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms was observed. In London, an analysis of 473 autistic children used the 1987 introduction of MMR to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts [11]. The incidence of developmental regression did not differ between cohorts, and the authors observed no difference in the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated autistic children. Two conclusions are evident from these data. First, the explicit consideration of developmental regression among autistic children does not alter the consistent independence of MMR vaccine and autism. Second, these data argue against the existence of a new variant form of autism. Retrospective, observational studies.Four retrospective, observational studies addressed the relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. In the United Kingdom, 71 MMR-vaccinated autistic children were compared with 284 MMR-vaccinated matched control children through use of the Doctor's Independent Network, a general practice database [12]. The authors observed no differences between case and control children in practitioner consultation rates"a surrogate for parental concerns about their child's development"within 6 months after MMR vaccination, which suggests that the diagnosis of autism was not temporally related to MMR vaccination. In Finland, using national registers, researchers linked hospitalization records to vaccination records in 535,544 children vaccinated during 1982"1986 [13]. Of 309 children hospitalized for autistic disorders, no clustering occurred relative to the time of MMR vaccination. In Denmark, again using a national registry, researchers determined vaccination status and autism diagnosis in 537,303 children born during 1991"1998 [14]. The authors observed no differences in the relative risk of autism between those who did and those who did not receive MMR vaccine. Among autistic children, no relationship between date of vaccination and development of autism was observed. In metropolitan Atlanta, using a developmental surveillance program, researchers compared 624 autistic children with 1824 matched control children [15]. Vaccination records were obtained from state immunization forms. The authors observed no differences in age at vaccination between autistic and nonautistic children, which suggests that early age of MMR vaccine exposure was not a risk factor for autism. Prospective observational studies.Capitalizing on a long-term vaccination project maintained by the National Board of Health, investigators in Finland performed 2 prospective cohort studies. Researchers prospectively recorded adverse events associated with MMR-vaccinated children during 1982"1996 and identified 31 with gastrointestinal symptoms; none of the children developed autism [16]. A further analysis of this cohort revealed no vaccine-associated cases of autism among 1.8 million children [17]. Although this cohort was analyzed using a passive surveillance system, the complete absence of an association between gastrointestinal disease and autism after MMR vaccination was compelling. Thimerosal Thimerosal"50% ethylmercury by weight"is an antibacterial compound that has been used effectively in multidose vaccine preparations for >50 years [18] (thimerosal is not contained in live-virus vaccines, such as MMR). In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act mandated identification and quantification of mercury in all food and drugs; 2 years later, the US Food and Drug Administration found that children might be receiving as much as 187.5 "g of mercury within the first 6 months of life. Despite the absence of data suggesting harm from quantities of ethylmercury contained in vaccines, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service recommended the immediate removal of mercury from all vaccines given to young infants [19]. Widespread and predictable misinterpretation of this conservative, precautionary directive, coupled with a public already concerned by a proposed but unsubstantiated link between vaccination and autism, understandably provoked concern among parents, which led to the birth of several antimercury advocacy groups. However, because the signs and symptoms of autism are clearly distinct from those of mercury poisoning, concerns about mercury as a cause of autism were"similar to those with MMR vaccine"biologically implausible [20]; children with mercury poisoning show characteristic motor, speech, sensory, psychiatric, visual, and head circumference changes that are either fundamentally different from those of or absent in children with autism. Consistent with this, a study performed by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention years later showed that mercury in vaccines did not cause even subtle signs or symptoms of mercury poisoning [21]. Despite the biological implausibility of the contention that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism, 7 studies"again descriptive or observational"were performed (table 2). Four other studies have been reviewed in detail elsewhere [28] but are not discussed here because their methodology is incomplete and unclear and, thus, cause difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Ecological studies.Three ecological studies performed in 3 different countries compared the incidence of autism with thimerosal exposure from vaccines. In each case, the nationwide removal of thimerosal"which occurred in 1992 in Europe and in 2001 in the United States"allowed robust comparisons of vaccination with thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free products, as follows: In Sweden and Denmark, researchers found a relatively stable incidence of autism when thimerosal-containing vaccines were in use (1980"1990), including years when children were exposed to as much as 200 "g of ethylmercury (concentrations similar to peak US exposures) [22]. However, in 1990, a steady increase in the incidence of autism began in both countries and continued through the end of the study period in 2000, despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992. In Denmark, researchers performed a study comparing the incidence of autism in children who had received 200 "g (1961"1970), 125 "g (1970"1992), or 0 "g of thimerosal (1992"2000) and again demonstrated no relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism [23]. In Quebec, researchers grouped 27,749 children from 55 schools by date of birth and estimated thimerosal exposure on the basis of the corresponding Ministry of Health vaccine schedules. School records were obtained to determine age-specific rates of pervasive developmental disorder [9]. Thimerosal exposure and pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis were found to be independent variables. Similar to previous analyses, the highest rates of pervasive developmental disorder were found in cohorts exposed to thimerosal-free vaccines. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied. Cohort studies.Four cohort studies that examined thimerosal exposure and autism have been performed, as follows: In Denmark, researchers examined >1200 children with autism that was identified during 1990"1996, which comprised W64;3 million person-years. They found that the risk of autism did not differ between children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines and those vaccinated with thimerosal-free vaccines or between children who received greater or lower quantities of thimerosal [24]. They also found that the rates of autism increased after the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines. In the United States, using the Vaccine Safety Data Link, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined 140,887 US children born during 1991"1999, including >200 children with autism [25]. The researchers found no relationship between receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In England, researchers prospectively followed 12,810 children for whom they had complete vaccination records who were born during 1991"1992, and they found no relationship between early thimerosal exposure and deleterious neurological or psychological outcomes [26]. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated the vaccination records of 100,572 children born during 1988"1997, using the General Practice Research Database, 104 of whom were affected with autism [27]. No relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism diagnosis was observed. Too Many Vaccines When studies of MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines failed to show an association with autism, alternative theories emerged. The most prominent theory suggests that the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system and creates an interaction with the nervous system that triggers autism in a susceptible host. This theory was recently popularized in the wake of a concession by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with regard to the case of a 9-year-old girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency whose encephalopathy, which included features of autism spectrum disorder, was judged to have worsened following the receipt of multiple vaccines at age 19 months [29]. Despite reassurances by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's action should not be interpreted as scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, many in the lay press and the public have not been reassured. The notion that children might be receiving too many vaccines too soon and that these vaccines either overwhelm an immature immune system or generate a pathologic, autism-inducing autoimmune response is flawed for several reasons: Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually [31]. Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980 [30]. Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child's immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4"6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines. multiple vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. Vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines [33,",35]. In other words, vaccination does not suppress the immune system in a clinically relevant manner. However, infections with some vaccine-preventable diseases predispose children to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens [36, 37]. Therefore, the available data suggest that vaccines do not weaken the immune system. Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccina-tion precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism. No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines. Conclusions Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child's immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads. Acknowledgments Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck. J.S.G.: no conflicts. |
43 | 824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00007-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned it should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money. |
11 | bf133c3b-2019-04-18T11:18:11Z-00000-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Anxiety Improves Performance It has been stated that anxiety creates such a large impact on their performance, Although it has not been stated to what degree the anxiety would reach, If there were to be no anxiety no obstacles would be properly considered or taken seriously as they would not be put under pressure to success and accomplish something that might be very important to them. Searchers and experts say that sports and physical activity is know to be down the level of anxiety and stress. There are many ways an athlete can respond to stress. Many times athletes do not handle stress properly, Nor do they know how to, So they must seek outside help in order to deal with it. Healthy ways for athletes to deal with stress are to engage in pleasurable activities, Take care of their body, Maintain a positive perspective, Laugh, Practice relaxation techniques, Talk to others, And get help from a professional. Many athletes do not know how to handle their stress and usually need help when it comes to dealing with the stress. Due to this fact many times the athletic trainer or coach is the first person the athlete turns to when they are stressed out. The coach and athletic trainer both need to know the available resources and know the proper steps to go to in order to get the athlete the proper help they need. |
37 | 4bbb1ad8-2019-04-18T11:38:28Z-00001-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phone Usage in School "Some teachers say that if the Student was taking a test and they used their phone to "Cheat", it would hurt their education." The act of using the phone is cheating by definition, as there are regulations in place which ban it's use during exams. It's cheating regardless of the teacher's personal opinion, as in most cases it's school or district policy, not class-room policy. "But say 30 years later, they have to use that knowledge, couldn't they just whip out their phone and do exactly the same thing they did 30 years ago in school" This could only apply to students who have access to Smartphones. Not all do. Additionally, this only reinforces how to find an answer, not why an answer is correct. "Letting Students use their phones in School would allow them to get better grades easier, and give them an even easier way to access their what they learned in School later " It would also give those students who can afford Smartphones an inherent advantage in schooling, while leaving poorer students at a disadvantage. Testing is also a measurement of your school's performance, not just you. You cannot collect accurate feedback on the efficacy of a class if it's not based on what is being taught to you. This would base testing on what you could Google, offering no feedback concerning the teacher or classroom materials. |
32 | 337b3aee-2019-04-18T16:22:29Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory I affirm the resolution Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Definitions Ought - "used to indicate duty or correctness." (Oxford Dictionaries Online) Compulsory Voting " A system of elections in which citizens who have the right and means to vote are required by law to vote. Nonvoters in this system face fines. Democracy " "government by the people; especially": rule of the majority" (Merriam-Webster online) Equality " "the state of being equal, especially in having the same rights, status,"and opportunities" (MacMillan Dictionary) My value"will be democracy, defined earlier as a government by the people. This value is appropriate because the resolution is a question of how to uphold democracy. It is important because a democratic government should uphold the principle of the "rule of the majority" as strongly as possible. My"criterion"will be equality. Equality is an important pillar of democracy that compulsory voting strengthens by ensuring that all individuals get a voice in government. Without it, democracy cannot exist because certain groups may face disenfranchisement as a result. Note: In this system, all ballots will have an option of "none of the above." This option is intended to protect the right not to vote. Checking this option is still meaningful to candidates because it shows that there are a number of votes that are still up for grabs, and if politicians address the needs of the groups who tend to pick this option, they can persuade those individuals to vote for them. Contention 1: Low Voter Turnout Threatens Democracy a."Low Turnout Threatens Majority Rule Low voter turnout is an issue in many democratic countries. Even worse is that with each passing generation, the average turnout is dropping steadily. The United States is a perfect example of this. Jason"Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 192-3 First, I will present the facts."Voter turnout has fallen significantly during the past several decades."Most"estimates show a decline of ten to fifteen points for turnout in both presidential and non-presidential elections from the 1960s to today."The official numbers from the U.S. Census report turnout at 69.3% in 1964 and at 58.3% in 2004, which was up from the low of 54.2% in 1996. The drop in turnout looks better or worse depending on how one crunches the numbers, but the bottom line is that"turnout in the past several decades has declined in most advanced democracies with the United"States at the"bottom of the pack among this group in terms of overall turnout. Some may be satisfied with the fact that turnout is up so far this decade in comparison to the last decade. However, it is imprudent to depend on once-in-a-lifetime campaigns or political events to mobilize voters. If the goal is sustained, high turnout nationally among all demographic groups should increase. In a democracy, it is ultimately the will of the people that decide the outcomes of elections and influential policy decisions. If voter turnout is low, then it"s possible that the so-called majority could actually be a minority of the population making decisions for the entire population. This goes against the very definition of democracy as the rule of the people. Compulsory voting fixes this problem by increasing voter turnout. Australia is an example of how compulsory voting has been successful. Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 Academic analysis shows that"compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters,"wherever it is used. "There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for"Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. "The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since. "A similar drop in Australia would amount to about 1.5 million fewer voters in a national election. In the older democracies that have voluntary voting, the turnout has usually been in the order of 70 to 80 percent, though in recent elections such countries have actually experienced a marked decline in turnout." "Compulsory voting solves this problem by giving individuals an equal say in their government. More people go out to vote, and as a result, the majority actually rules. As a result, the decisions of the democracy become more legitimate because the results are being decided by a majority of the entire population, not just the majority of the portion of the population that decided to vote. The equality in status that compulsory voting provides makes the decisions that people make for the democracy more legitimate, which thus upholds democracy. b."Low Voter Turnout Creates an Unrepresentative Democracy Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 23 An election can be thought of as a political census in which near universal participation is required to generate political decisions that are an accurate reflection of what the population actually wants."When less than two-thirds of the electorate goes to the polls, the government that results from this election typically has the expressed support of well under a third of those eligible to vote."Democratic legitimacy concerns may not weigh heavily with the ordinary voter, but they certainly do trouble the collective minds of governments, and it is no wonder that falling turnout should have generated hand-wringing among the political elite."Compulsory turnout would ensure that virtually all voices are taken into account, and that the outputs of the electoral process thus have full democratic legitimacy. Unless a true majority of the population votes, an election is illegitimate because a minority of the population is masquerading itself as a majority. By giving all individuals equal access to ballots, this problem can be corrected because the voices of all individuals would be taken into account. This is the only way to ensure a legitimate democracy; a democracy cannot represent the people unless all voices are accounted for. Contention 2: The Status Quo Creates an Imbalance of Power Skewed Towards the Wealthy It has also been shown that there are large gaps in voter turnout between different socioeconomic groups. Studies have shown that wealthier individuals are much more likely to vote than those who are impoverished. Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 22 The gap in turnout between socio-economic groups is"less pronounced, but still"alarmingly large: depending on the measure of socio-economic status employed, it ranges from 13 to 16 per cent between those at the lowest and those at the highest rungs of the ladder"(Keaney and Rogers 2006). These figures suggest that"there is a serious inclusivity problem associated with electoral politics. As long as the poor don"t vote, politicians will not spend much time addressing their needs because they are unlikely to vote. Instead, they will cater to the needs of the middle class and the wealthy because they will likely make up the majority of the people who vote. As a result, the status quo has a system of elections that is biased towards wealthier individuals. This leads to policies that are skewed towards these groups because the politicians are catering to them so that they can guarantee their vote in the future. If compulsory voting is instilled, this problem will be solved because now, everyone is voting. As a result, politicians will address to the needs of these disenfranchised groups, which leads to equality amongst all groups because policies will be passed which fairly benefit both the wealthy and those in poverty, which benefits democracy by taking into account the voices of all groups of people. Democracy is also enhanced when this happens because a key principle of democracy is that the government serves the people. In this case, compulsory voting serves the people by reducing income inequality. Because the will of the people dictates that the government should do whatever it can to help the people, the will of the people dictates that the government ought to enact compulsory voting. Contention 3: Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization Political polarization occurs when political attitudes diverge towards ideological extremes. Compulsory voting can solve this problem. Eric Liu. "Why Voting Should Be Mandatory." Times."August 21,"2012. http://ideas.time.com... Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues,"it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders,"who are"exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."And"they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. Even though the evidence specifically mentions the United States, it is easy to cross-apply this analysis to other democracies. Those that have multiple parties are bound to run into this problem because in the status quo, the first goal of the parties is to get their partisan bases to vote, and whichever base gets more votes wins the election. Moderates are left out in this system. Compulsory voting eliminates this strategy because now, individuals from varied views will be voting. This equality amongst all types of political views will mean that politics will become less polarized. This is because candidates must now focus on those with moderate views that were previously left out of campaign discourse. This improves democracy because the will of all people, not just those with partisan views, is represented. For this reason as well others stated throughout my case, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in today"s debate. |
18 | 986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00005-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Marijuana should remain illegal This debate will be about whether weed should be legalized or remain illegal. I will take on the role as the naysayer. My opponent will argue for its legalization. For round 1, when accepting my challenge, Introduce yourself, but the arguing will not begin until the second round. |
10 | b2d8d220-2019-04-18T16:19:58Z-00002-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | vaccines It seems my opponent has forfeited this round. No matter. We still have 2 more rounds. |
31 | 368e9597-2019-04-18T19:23:32Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist I stand in affirmation of the resolution "Resolved: a completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist." Definitions (www.dictionary.com) 1)Completely Omnipotent Being: A living thing possessing absolutely almighty power -Completely: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full -Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God. -Being: a living thing 2)Logically: according to or agreeing with the principles of logic 3)Exist: to have actual being; be Under these definitions, the resolution can be viewed as "A living thing possessing absolutely almighty power cannot 'be' in accordance to principles of logic" Observation: No restrictions can apply to a completely omnipotent being The idea of an omnipotent being is that it is a being with infinite/almighty power. As such, to impose any restrictions on that being shows that it does not have almighty power. For example, if you were to establish a restriction that prevents an OB from eating strawberries, then the being is not completely omnipotent, as you can take away its power to make decisions. To be completely omnipotent, a being must therefore have no restrictions on what it can do. Observation: Can an omnipotent being create a task so difficult that it could not complete that task? A common example of this is the stone paradox. It goes 'Can an OB create a stone so heavy that he/she/it cannot lift it?'� The paradox here is evident. If an OB can create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it, it is not omnipotent. If an OB cannot create such a heavy stone, then it is not omnipotent. Similar to the stone paradox, is it possible for an omnipotent being to create a being more powerful than itself? If so, that being was never omnipotent, as there exists a potential power greater than itself. If an OB cannot do so, we have another restriction, therefore not omnipotent. Contention One: To maintain omnipotence, a being must be bound by logic -As shown in my observations, an omnipotent being unbound by logic is not truly completely omnipotent, as there exist scenarios in which it removes its own omnipotence. Contention Two: Such a restriction removes omnipotence -If the OB is restricted, it is not longer an almighty power, as there is a rule it must bow its head to. If there is a restriction on its actions, it is not almighty, as there is a greater source of power with the ability to bind the OB. These two contentions show us the logical impossibility of an OB. If a being is to be completely omnipotent, it cannot be bound by logic. In this case, the resolution is affirmed, as the OB does not 'logically' exist. On the other hand, if the being is bound by logic, it is not completely omnipotent. On to my opponent's case "Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer. So ToastOfDestiny, I accept your challenge under the resolution "A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist."" -I do agree. This shall be a debate of epic proportions (provided I can access a computer at nationals. I should be able to get some sort of internet access. Somehow.), and I look forward to it. "Pikachu, I choose you!" -Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Regardless, I will go with the ultimate form of cheapness, and pull out a Groudon. Or perhaps one of the new-fangled ground-type legendaries. Or for that matter, all of them. |
11 | 784aea60-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Team America Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00060-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation. Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation. As such, Social Security payments are protected from inflation, while private accounts might not be. |
40 | 98cd11a9-2019-04-18T12:27:33Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Should the Death Penalty Be Kept "The death penalty is a vital part of American justice." Pro argues that the death penalty is a vital part of american justice, whilst in the realities of various other governments there can be more proposals toward different approaches, therefore it is NOT the only vital portion of american justice, whilst regarding the death penalty it should not be sustainable. The death penalty should not be kept, there can be various other methods of sustaining criminals in their current sentence periods. Alternatives can help contribute to less death and in fact, less torture. Not to mention of the racial discrimination involved in criminal participation towards misdeeds such as stealing, raping, murder, etc. Such as the case regarding juvenile delinquents whom had also been given death penalty less likely than adult criminals. This is immoral and unjustified children who committed crimes should NOT be given death penalty instead they should be given the liberty of doing workforce of perhaps a harsher punishment. [1] Primarily, it is considered that the death penalty has been overused for the past century and thus is consistent and impractical. The death penalty does NOT save lives, in fact it merely increases the homicide rates which swell up in prison facilities. [2] It is arbitrary to assume that the death penalty should be kept, and it is comprehensible as to why it should for the sole reason of the highest punishment unimaginable defined by the system of the U.S. government. "Without it, more people would commit horrific crimes because they no longer fear death." With the death penalty, prisoners can STILL fear death, we cannot assume that a prisoner's state of mind is truly sane nor insane. Yes, people can commit a large number of horrific crimes but given the death penalty. It can be overused. The supreme court has ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional and thus most government officials have done nothing to recognize it.[3] This exemplifies that not only can prisoner's be given the opportunity of liberty through the sake of the free peoples but it can serve as a reminder to help realize that the death penalty is immoral and thus unjustified.[3] [1]http://psycnet.apa.org... [2]http://www.nber.org... [3]http://journals.sagepub.com... |
38 | d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects. |
17 | 99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00003-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Thank you as well - I am fully aware that this is a debate about recreational marijuana. You make some very good points as well.Rebuttals:(Rebuttal for your first paragraph): I am fully aware of that. According to this map: https://en.wikipedia.org...Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Hawaii are the only four states so far to legalize recreational marijuana. Pennyslvania, which is the state currently pending for legalization - used to not have it allowed at all. States such as: New York, Nevada, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Deleware, Conneticut, Rhode Island, and Massachussetts; all have marijuana decriminalized. Most other states have marijuana legal in some form or for a certain purpose. The only states who outright ban marijuana completely are: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Wyoming, Kansas, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennyslvania. That means that only 11/50 states are in SUPPORT of marijuana in some way, shape, or form. And many more states in 2015 are pending for legalization such as California and Pennsylvania (as mentioned). The point I am trying to make is that most states are in suppport of marijuana, and it is not just a random group of people who support it somewhere in the united states. "As Gallup shows, support for legalization is at 62 percent among adults under 30, 56 percent among those aged 30 to 49." This piece of evidence means that a majority of adults beliebe marijuana should be legalized.(Rebuttal for second paragraph): While that may be true - over the counter drugs actually cause more fatalities then (more dangerous) drugs you have mentioned. I understand that this debate souly focuses on marijuana but take a look at this statistic: CAUSE OF DEATHS FROM DRUGS PrescriptionDrugs Street DrugsCombined: 39% 45% (Amphetamine + Heroin + Methamphetamine + Cocaine) ~http://www.drugfreeworld.org...This statistic shows how perscription drugs kill more people then a drug like marijuana would (you cannot overdose on marijuana, but it does kill like any other drug, when hollucinating and driving especially). Making marijuana legal would give people an OPTION to use it very often or not so, THE SAME CHOICE people make with prescription drugs. So what are we going to do? Ban over the counter drugs now? No, we cannot do that, and neither can we keep this from people as a choice (you stated how this argument was not for medical purposes, but this paragraph you mentioned was on that topic - I am becoming confused).(Rebuttal for "responce to second rebuttal"): "In 2014, Colorado retailers sold $386 million of medical marijuana and $313 million for purely recreational purposes. The two segments of the market generated $63 million in tax revenue, with an additional $13 million collected in licenses and fees." ` so far from Colorado's legalization of the drug, they already made MILLIONS of dollars in sales of the drug - a tax profit of $76 million total. THAT IS ONE STATE ALONE. For theoretical purposes, lets pretend that all 50 states had it legalized and all made a $76 million dollar profit. That would generate a three billion eight hundred million dollar tax revenue to go towards drug rebab etc. This would COMPLETELY outweigh the cost needed for drug rehab - and the government will still make a profit in the end. While that may be true, as you have mention, nuclear weapons are illegal because they can KILL soo many people if given to the wrong hands. They can affect INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. But marijuana cannot do that, it only effects the person consuming the drug and IN RARE CASES some of their peers - not killing hundreds of people at once for someone else's mistake. That is why the government has banned those kinds of weapons. As you have mentioned, the USA IS A FREE COUNTRY; and with freedom, comes freedom of choice. Think of ammendments such as 1, 11, etc. with freedom laws;(http://constitution.findlaw.com...).(Rebuttal for final paragraph): Only 9% of people who try marijuana become addicted - that is a SMALL percentage compared to the 91% who do not get hooked. Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now. That is because the goverment is not going around making commertials saying; "Marijuana is soo cool, you should try it!" etc. The government would simply be dicriminalizing the drug and making it legal and NOT PROMOTING it in ANY WAY. Even though the government wants to protect us the best they can, we all know they cannot protect us from EVERYTHING, that is just common sense and logic. But giving people freedom of choice in another form (because there are so many in this country already), in my opinon, would be something to be thankful, happy, grateful, and supportive of (as you have mentioned yourself).Citations:http://prospect.org...;http://www.drugfreeworld.org...;http://www.washingtonpost.com...;http://constitution.findlaw.com...; |
47 | b3cad6c7-2019-04-18T16:04:18Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Is homework necessary To be honest I'm not saying don't give us any homework, all I am saying is that we should not be given too much homework. I recon it is fine to have a little bit of revision. But teachers don't realise that we get homework from every teacher we have. They do not realise it so they give us heaps of homework and it just stresses us out. Then we stay up to about 11 or 12 at night then we end up falling asleep in class. It might be different at your school but I recon our teachers give us to much homework. When we get too much homework it makes us dread school even more. It's quite annoying because I have many after school activities like sports to keep myself fit. I'm not sure if you have a dog but I do and I have to look after her and she's really naughty. Some people may not have any sports or activities after school so they can get there homework done but I do so it is really hard for me to finish all of my homework. Trust me when you go to school without some of your homework done you get in a lot of trouble. |
22 | 2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00004-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | every problem does not have a solution oh right, sure in that case obviusly if its irreversible you cant reverse it, if you reversed it it wasnt irreversible you could have cables that absorb the heat.. but the heat is so little that its irrelveant |
28 | 9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized Apologies for the delay - I have been busy with other stuff. Thanks for an interesting debate so far.A quick note on the resolutionMy opponent seems to assume that since I'm defending prostitution being legalised, I can't be defending that it should be regulated. This is a non-sequiter. In fact I'm defending the legalisation of prostitution in order that it might be regulated. If my opponent agrees a regulated industry is better than an unregulated one, he must also agree that this industry should be legal. Regulation is a positive outcome of following my model, which is both to legalise and to regulate, even though I need to defend only one of those two things in the debate. You need to legalise prostitution in order to regulate it. In fact, every single country in the world with legal prostitution also has regulations for prostitution as well as more general labor protections that are extended to prostitutes.Prostitution will still happenFor the first time in this debate, we've just heard my opponent contest that making prostitution legal does not mean more people do it. His argument is essentially that we can't all be as good as New Zealand. While I'm going to have to admit New Zealand is pretty damn awesome, I can assure you that our awesomeness derives from things other than prostitution. Our experiences with prostitution can therefore be said to be quite representative. To prove this point, my opponent needed to identify how we are (or were) different with respect to prostitution to other countries around the world.I think my opponent might still be confused about how this argument fits into my case. To ensure safety and the role of state being fulfilled, we could either stop prostitution or legalise it. My argument here is only that you can't stop prostitution - it will still happen.SafetyIf never being safe due to the nature of work was a justifiable reason for banning anything, we should ban everything. Every profession carries some degree of risk, be it mining, fishing, agriculture, banking, truck driving, serving in the army, or anything else. Governments have a certain obligation to help people minimise the risk where this is possible. They do so in every legal industry.Moving on to the argument that prostitution cannot be distinguished from crime. My opponent reasons that in prostitution one party may be dissatisfied. This is true, but it is not inherent to prostitution. The difference is that with prostitution, as with any willing transaction, you can generally assume that both parties were happy, whilst with crime you can generally assume the opposite.My opponent argues that nobody is safe. While this is true, prostitutes are particularly vulnerable because unlike everyone else, they can't go to the police if something bad happens to them. The law is there to protect everyone - except, apparently, prostitutes. There are a number of other reasons why prostitutes are particularly vulnerable, which I have already described.Finally my opponent says there is no evidence that legalising soft crimes can prevent harder crimes. First, to make this point you need to engage with my evidence from round two, which was a fair amount of causal links. Second, there is empirical evidence for this as well. There is indirect evidence from alcohol prohibition (http://www.liberator.net...) and statistically based on prostitution data (http://www.kuro5hin.org...).Role of StateI am well aware pornography is linked to human trafficking. I chose it quite deliberately. Loads of industries are linked to trafficking. Even having a non-open border is strongly linked to human trafficking. My point is that a vague link to human trafficking is not sufficient to make prostitution illegal any more than pornography is illegal or all borders should be open. The point is that the government can't say sex and money are allowed to mix in one industry and not in another, because that's inconsistent.The point about money wasn't to say money is good and everything involving it should be legalised. It was to establish that both pornography and prostitution share the same basic elements, with the sole exception of physical contact (which ought really to increase, not reduce, the state's obligation if anything).I know that your government thinks pornography is OK. Perhaps there might be an argument for those countries where it is illegal, such as those with Sharia law, but for countries where the government has already accepted pornography is moral (which is almost all of them), they also need to accept prostitution is moral. People can, for instance, choose to disagree with the state about when they're ready to go into the pornography business. Such people are thrown in jail for good reason.If you steal from a bank - even if you do it in secret - it's the bank's business. Therefore it's not a privacy issue. The difference between a bank and a prostitute is that the bank is a public institution. Others are affected if that money is lost. If I'd stolen a trade secret from a bank told to me in private, then that might be a privacy issue in that privacy has been breached - competitors can come into the private space of the firm. Getting others out is different from getting the government out. The government needs to control others to prevent them from interfering with our private affairs - and prevent us from interfering with others - if we are all willing. This is the principle on which privacy law is founded.Human TraffickingMy opponent thinks you can make money through human trafficking. This can only possibly be economically true if there is excess demand for prostitutes. You can't reduce demand in the local economy, nor can you change supply overall, as proved by my first point. What you can do is increase local supply to meet local demand and therefore make trafficking more expensive. So the reason why you can make money off trafficking is that prostitution is illegal, not that it's legal. Either way trafficking should be kept illegal.If prostitution is illegal, police need to find and discover underground networks to trace back who did the smuggling. Traffickers themselves are caught much more rarely than people who are trafficked, and it's because they're able to keep their identity a secret as the prostitutes (who are usually more than willing to identify them) are all thrown into jail and not listened to. Once again, prostitutes are the victims here! They're not the criminals we should be catching. They should be testifying against these awful people instead. If a prostitute comes up to the police and says "I think trafficking is going on here", then the police has the co-operation of that prostitute, rather than the prostitute deliberately working against the police to escape conviction. As con has already proved, prostitutes don't like being trafficked, so they'll always help the police out. I should add, though, that police can already question anybody about their work if they think a crime is going on.My opponent admits the problem is much wider than prostitution. The obvious solution is to stop blaming the prostitutes and keeping their profession illegal, but instead tackling the bigger issue.The solution is absolutely to legalise something if keeping it illegal is causing a massive harm, which it is. With stealing we accept that being a Robin Hood is something that makes you an outlaw, although there are situations in which it is actually legal to steal (taxes, for instance). We just ban it when it creates big harms. Prostitution can be good - and why make a good thing illegal when you can make just the bad part illegal?I look forward to our final round. |
49 | dc5cae13-2019-04-18T15:01:47Z-00001-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Vaccinations Should be Mandatory Anything I saw from here on out will be insignificant due to the lack of an argument from con. Please do not penalize! He may have had a legitimate reason to forfeit. |
17 | 6c7100de-2019-04-18T16:32:09Z-00006-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal ok, I except the challenge and will post my second argument as soon as you do. |
18 | 6c4d230-2019-04-18T13:03:20Z-00000-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Church Bodies Of Christ Women and ... "girls" can do whatever they want with their bodies. To be defiled, the defiler should be jailed. Demons and devils only exist in your mind... maybe why you look like one. Practicing moderation is always a good trait to have, and usually leads to a healthier lifestyle, but you are not god, a ruler, a nothing... one can live how they want and their bodies will remain clean as long as they shower. Actually, taking a shower and using good shampoo will keep you clean, and maybe a comb. How can you give advice when you look like you just woke up behind a garbage can? Since you have not defined anything... i will just say what is on my mind until you make a meanignful... anything. You sir, seem like an unclean pedo, and should take a shower in jail. |
15 | fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00191-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science. There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong. |
22 | df734c1e-2019-04-18T15:15:43Z-00004-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | is war the solution to all the problems I accept. Resolved: Is war the solution to all the problems? Under this resolution, PRO will affirm this statement, arguing that war is the solution to all society's problems, whereas CON will negate. But PRO states in his first round that war is *not* a solution because it leads to a loss of lives and economic prospects--but he needs to b affirming the resolution, not negating it. You can consider PRO's remarks as a concession--arguments which directly support my case. |
18 | 82dd47f2-2019-04-18T17:03:15Z-00000-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Church and State should remain separate. Thank you very much for this debate, it has been enjoyable. Now, let's finish this off, shall we? As I stated previously in this debate, using a religion is similar to using a philosophy. The origin is different, but using it as reasoning or a starting point for your belief is not in itself wrong when considering representatives. It's a much smaller mix of church and state, but it is not denied by the constitution unless you want to add words to it. I'm confused as to your points regarding the court. You say the government is off balance when religion is used as reasoning behind laws, but you concede that if the courts deem it unconstitutional it'll get shut down. That's the balance I was talking about, and therefore the lack of balance you state exists in fact does not exist. We ought to let people use their beliefs as representatives for the reason that it makes the environment more secular not less, and the law may be debated, and if a minority of people disagree with the majority it can be challenged by the government's own system. My next point will concern your analogy of being pro-slavery and using religion. I would consider that a false analogy. When a representative uses his belief system as a beginning point for his belief is does not constitute the equality of oppressing a demographic. They're too completely different levels of reasoning, and one can easily be shut down by the constitution while the other may not. Regarding your point on the majority agreeing, again I being up that the minority in a situation may still strike down oppressive bills. I would also add the Presidential veto on such bills, and then again, the Supreme Court will be hearing about such a bill as you use in your analogy. I do apologize for the misunderstanding, but my point regarding the people creating the laws was lead through the election of representatives. For clarification, if a district elects someone religious into office because they agree with their stance, then the representative's job ought to be to represent the people not the Constitution. Elections become irrelevant if the representatives aren't allowed to represent the people. My point regarding getting shut down when arguing for a religion was meant simply to serve a point. If you allow the degree of church and state I argue for, then there's nothing wrong with it. If someone tries to go further, then no harm was done because no one will listen to them except maybe a few friends. Your example of Rick Perry is somewhat non-topical as each state has their own constitution aside from the national constitution. The national constitution was made solely for the dictation of the federal government, and in instances where it is specifically clarified, the states. Each state, however, has their own constitution. I don't know the Constitution of Texas by heart, but it is irrelevant to the debate. To summarize, I'll bring back up some of the larger points. One of them I didn't spend a lot of time on. I did bring it up, however, and it was ignored (whether intentionally or unintentionally) by you. It's my argument regarding how something which is meant to be all inclusive should work. By definition it should not exclude religions. We did not create a government that was supposed to be against using religion, but rather, it was meant to be one which included all beliefs. If not all beliefs are included, we go against what our government is designed to be. I would also like to bring up representation. I don't believe this has been adequately attacked. As stated above, if the representative is not allowed to represent his people to the fullest, he is in violation of his duties, the Constitution, and the ideals of a representative government in itself. There is an extent that using religion can be oppressive, but there's an extent it isn't. I touched upon this in the debate, but simply put I will use some agreed upon arguments. When religious arguments get used too much or to too great of an extent it gets shut down. There's already a fail safe for religious representatives, and in respect the their jobs, they must be allowed to use their personal beliefs to represent the people who elected them because of his personal beliefs. Again, thank you for a great debate, and now I leave it up to the voters. |
33 | fad42a17-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00001-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Now for my defense and final remarks. Defense 1 Like most of us know that meat spoils and then goes to waste "Unopened packages of lunchmeat or hot dogs can be kept refrigerated for up to two weeks if they are within their expiration date."[1] but unlike other products that isn't meat, they don't spoil. The meat industry would have to resort to selling their products at cheap prices if the demand went lower than supply, and all the unsold meat would go to waste, so it would still go to waste. It's all about the dollar and if the meat industries are still making money they will continue to make the same amount of meat in hope for more demand would come in. Defense 2 The grain fed to the animals have growth hormones, so it wouldn't be good to any human. Grain doesn't offer the same nutrients that meat would offer, so it would be worse if the left over resources that were intended for the live stock to be fed by humans. In short term the farmers or the businessmen would have bought the grain and gave it growth hormones so it would be waste then, and long term the grains wouldn't offer the same nutrients as meat would. Defense 3 Although Iron and Protein can be supplemented with certain vegetables or fruits, but meat contains more protein then any other fruit or vegetable. Meat is easier to obtain then the special fruit or vegetable, so these fruits or vegetables would be more expensive and that would cause people lose more money and it would lead to more debt, and on and on. Instead of buying expensive fruits or vegetables to get the protein or iron, they could buy the meat and not let it go to waste. Defense 4 There is waste for being a vegetarian, and the waste is meat. Not buying meat will allow it to go to waste, and they are not changing anything, the meat industry will still make meat, and if the vegetarians wont buy meat then it will go to waste. Short term to a vegetarian not buying meat, more meat will go to waste, long term more meat will go to waste. There are more people who will eat meat then there are vegetarians, so the meat industry will see these people coming and and they will try to predict the new high demand so they will make more meat, but if the demand goes lower than it should, then the supply of meat goes down due to spoil. Some vegetarians are extreme activists and they would try anything to stop the production of meat, so they stop eating meat, but that won't change anything because of the new people coming in that will most likely not be vegetarians and then the meat industry tries to predict the new demand and continue to make the same amount of meat. Now for my final remarks. There are new people coming into this world, and the chance of they being vegetarians is very slim to none, so the meat industries sees this and tries to predict this and make a high amount of supply, but if a vegetarian doesn't buy meat then it will go to waste. Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat because they cause waste, they don't change anything, and it is all in their heads. Vote Pro! [1] = http://www.brighthub.com... |
Subsets and Splits