query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
41 | c6ec7c80-2019-04-18T19:07:26Z-00005-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives NOTE: This is my first debate on this website but only SERIOUS debaters please who fully understand LD (Lincoln Douglas) style value-based debate. It is because economic sanctions do not properly preserve justice, I urge an affirmation of today's resolution; "Resolved, Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives." To clarify this round, I offer the following definitions: Economic sanctions: the imposition of international economic boycotts and embargoes. Achieve: to gain with effort. Foreign Policy Objectives: the objectives of the diplomatic and economic policy of a nation or group of nations in its interactions with other nations. My value for this debate will be justice, defined as rendering unto each their due. Each individual in a justified society ought to be ensured a fair way of living and a healthy life, and thus, my value criterion is preservation of life. It is a belief in the inherent value of each individual from which we derive a need for abolishing economic sanctions that do not provide for the preservation of life and the provision for the pursuit of individual happiness and ultimately do not respect life. Thus, when we undermine a respect for human life, it becomes increasingly likely that rights violations will run rampant and individuals will not be rendered their due. The affirmative's first contention is that the people carrying out the sanctions should target elites, or individuals with the most power or money over simply embargoing a whole country, as elites are often the cause of the difficulty of achieving foreign policy objectives- not the nonviolent and noncombatant citizens of a country. As stated by The Council on Foreign Relations, "In the great majority of cases, sanctions should target elites, [while they have been targeting] the populace at large. Iraqis are not our enemy. Nor are Cubans. We can be imaginative in targeting elites. We can single out individuals and agencies that give offense or outrage. We can devise civil and criminal punishments so that their persons and property are at risk whenever they travel or do business in a civilized world. This reminds that economic sanctions are inherently bad as they don't target the problem and instead target the nation as a whole. To add, According to the BBC, "Economic sanctions have contributed to a spike in infant mortality rates, a fallen literacy rate, starvation and is best defined as genocide." Ultimately, economic sanctions do not uphold the preservation of life if so many of the innocent are killed and therefore cannot uphold justice. We need alternatives such as diplomacy, which I will later discuss, that better uphold preservation of life and better target the problem itself, namely the elites, not nation at large. The rationale behind using sanctions is also flawed when we consider that we have other ways to target the noncombatants as well, and not the populace, while still being effective. The affirmative's second contention is that the facts show these economic sanctions simply do not work enough to justify use. There is a long list of failed sanctions, the US embargo against Cuba being one. According to The CATO Institute, "The objective of the U.S. policy toward Cuba is how best to undermine the Castro regime and hasten the island's day of liberation. For almost half a century, the U.S. government has tried to isolate Cuba economically. The embargo had a national security rationale before 1991, but all that changed with the fall of Soviet communism. More than a decade after losing billions in economic aid from its former sponsor, Cuba is poor and dysfunctional and poses NO threat to American or regional security." Another example of failure is Poland, which didn't democratize from sanctions, and instead only with from withdraw of the Brezhnev Doctrine. I could continuously quote times they haven't worked, which is 5% of the time, according to Robert Pape's reevaluation of HSE's findings. But these examples are showing that the reasoning behind implementing economic sanctions is flawed, as they simply do not achieve foreign policy objectives in the large majority of cases. They are, in fact, worse for the countries involved, and we cannot justify our actions, as they simply do not work. Cuba still poses no threat to the US's citizen's after or before this sanction and Castro is still leading a communist country. But this terrible situation could have been prevented if we had used a better alternative such as using diplomacy through the UN as a medium, which over the centuries has worked many times to justify its use according to The Official United Nations Website. Diplomacy prevents the need for these sanctions, and also gives us peaceful, nonviolent resolves to achieve foreign policy objective. Furthermore, it solves the problem much quicker and better preserves life for the world as a whole. (In the end, we can't justify sanctions as they kill and fail to preserve life and much more often than not, fail to achieve foreign policy objectives.) The affirmative's third contention is that economic sanctions cut off trade-, which can lead to many unprecedented and unintended problems with multiple nations. Countries over thousands of years, have all required trade to ensure life is preserved by providing goods and the growth of their nations. But when we cut off the means of a country to trade, we severely cut down the lifeblood of the nation. This may be what we want with these economic sanctions, so you may wonder why this is so detrimental. It is because of the slippery slope precedent that follows this. If one country is embargoed, that obviously can hurt trade with other countries, so multiple countries suffer as a result, and economic sanctions backfire and hurt those that are not only innocent, but should not be involved with the sanctions. As stated by The Finance Market, "The importance of international trade cannot be ignored. It has contributed immensely to the all sided development of a nation. It has brought about political, social and economic upliftment of countries. International trade, in a majority of the countries have contributed significantly to the gross domestic product or the GDP. It has served as a platform for "globalization". This further illustrates that we cannot use economic sanctions as they would hurt trade, which is incredibly important for multiple nations, and the welfare of its citizens lives, as well as making sure their due is ensured. It doesn't just affect them; it affects the country's the nation trades with, and those around them. In the end, the sanction impacts more innocent than just the target nation, and we see these actions being unjustified as we would be limiting globalization on an unintended scale and in the end not achieve foreign policy objectives, and therefore we cannot further the human race's progression when items, ideas and information not being shared. (We then see that cutting off trade is an unjust action that has led to lack of preservation of life, as it cuts vital resources needed for nation to survive). It is for these reasons I strongly urge an affirmative vote. |
28 | 8220b514-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan Let me note before my argument that I have PLENTY more stats and arguments to state but I will include that in my next argument these are just SOME of the reasons why Lebron is better I think lebron James is the best player in NBA history for many reasons , before I even get into the mutitude of stats and such that prove my point let me just say one thing , Jordan is a great player , in fact the second best player of all time , but Jordan could not take over a game in the many different ways Lebron does , Lebron can get everyone in loved and when he is on the court it is always 1 vs 5 until Lebron gets his teammates involved through his great play because we all know Lebron never has amazing teammates like Jordan did ( I will get into that in my next argument ) and the one thing even Lebron haters or Jordan lovers or at least anyone with a working brain will know is that Lebron is the most dominating physical specimen that has ever been in the history of all sports since the beginning of time ! Lebron is a better athlete than Jordan and a better all around player even the professionals who ride the Jordan bandwagon will admit that , that's obvious , no one can ever compare to lebrons physical ability . Now , since that is out of the way , Lebron is the all time SF assist leader and will most likely end up in the top 5 or 10 in assists leaders of all positions , lebron spreads the floor like no other player in the history of the sport , just like Scottie Pippen said , when lebron james is on the court , everyone is a threat to score . When Jordan played he was and still is the best scorer of all time but he didn't have the vision lebron has , it's not because of Jordan's amazing carrying abilities that no one on his team scored in double digits most of the time , it's because Jordan had the ball more than anyone by far and more time then not , he shot . That's why lebron is better in all around offense , lebron has a better FG% than Jordan because if he doesn't have a good shot he can throw a 40mph pass to a big down low that no one would consider open before that but lebron can get the pass in , or he can pass it across court to the open man at the 3 . Jordan , when he couldn't get a good shot off , he would still shoot it and miss most the time . Lebron all around offense , is better , lebron can get offensive boards , pass , and execute plays better than Jordan . On the defensive end , Jordan's DPOY doesn't mean anything when compared to lebron , back then lebron would have won multiple DPOY's , lebron can guard every position , he can guard 1-4 and lock down if he needs to and if he needs to be can guard a center for a play and have a pretty good chance against him . Jordan can only guard the SG and PG and the occasional SF but most were too big and strong for him , Jordan could steal the ball better than lebron but lebron can get boards and block better than Jordan , for example Lebron's signature chase down block . Now when the argument of who's more clutch comes , Lebron's most resent buzzer beater officially ties jordan for career made shots in the last seconds of a playoff game . And Jordan got almost all of his after he was 30 , and lebron is 30 now so lebron of you wanna be realistic , will end up getting more buzzer beaters than Jordan , and lebron in the lat 15 seconds of a game , has a better percentage than Jordan . So statistically and technically lebron is more clutch than Jordan ESPECIALLY in the playoffs . Unlike Lebron , without good teammates Jordan was HORRIBLE in the playoffs , did you know before Pippen joined him MJ was 1-9 in the playoffs in his career , 1-9 ! !! ! Lebron has NEVER LOST IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS ! He is the first player since the legend celtics to go to 5 finals in a row ! Jordan couldn't even get past the first round without Pippen ! ! Lebron is the best playoff player in the history of the NBA he just recently passed Jordan in amount of 30-5-5 playoff games with 52 but he has gotten more since then which means he has around 53-55 Jordan has 51 and lebron is no where near done in the playoffs ! 2 playoff games ago lebron put up numbers no other player in the NBA history has ever gotten , he just put up 37-18-13 IN THE PLAYOFFS ! No player has ever put up those numbers IN THE SEASON OR PLAYOFFS EVER ! Lebron is the best player ever when it comes to playoffs in the history of the NBA and you cannot argue that cause crushing I've said is facts . Lebron has countless records already over Jordan but j only have like 15 more minutes to answer this so i can't go into all of them until next round ! Lebron has the better per game stats than Jordan he averages more blocks steals and rebounds than Jordan for their careers after this past season stats get out into Lebron's career averages , lebron has somewhere just over 60 career playoff triple doubles in his 9th playoff appearance , Jordan has 39 after his 13th playoff appearance , lebron is ranked number 1 in NBA history with the highest scoring average per game on elimination playoff games with 31 , he is number 1 in games in the playoffs with at least 25-10-5 with 32 times , lebron took 726 games to reach at least 20,000 points and 5,000 assist , Jordan took 926 , Scottie Pippen told Alonzo mourning that lebron would " kick michael Jordan's *** in basketball , lebron has 159 10+ assist games , Jordan has 88 , lebron is the only player in history to reach 2,000 pts , 500 rebounds , 500 assists , and 100 steals for at least 7 seasons in a row , Jordan has only 2 of those seasons and there not even in a row , those were just his two best seasons , lebron has the most 30 point triple doubles Ever with 19 and Jordan has 17 , lebron is 60% in the last 5 seconds of the 4th quarter or overtime , Jordan is 45% , NOW MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS NEXT PART . .. . ALL OF THE STATS I JUST POSTED WERE RECORDED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PAST SEASON SO AMOST ALL OF THESE STATS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AND BIGGER SINCE THEN INCLUDING THE PLAYOFF STATS BECAUSE LEBRON HAS BEEN AMAZING THIS PLAYOFFS , all of Jordan's stats are never getting better , his career is over , lebron has at least 5-8 more seasons so he will surpass MJ in almost everything . Scottie Pippen said out of his own mouth , " Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to ever play the game , but Lebron may be the greatest player to ever play the game . .. No guy is not a threat when Lebron is on the court. " Skip Bayless of First Take said " Lebron is a better all around player than Jordan . He has more skills than Michael . " Stephen A Smith replied " we know that " Another debate Skip and Stephen also had was that skip thought MJ could guard Lebron and Stephen A Smith replied " you must be crazy , too big , too strong , too much of a locomotive coming at him , now I'm not saying Michael Jordan wouldn't be Michael Jordan , but if that's the case , why did Michael Jordan need Scottie Pippen to defend Magic Johnson when he won the world championship the first time around ? " which proves that MJ couldn't guard Lebron , Stephen A went on to say that Magic Johnson's athleticism doesn't scratch the surface of Lebron's . And the flight man himself has said he was guarding Lebron , he can't stop Lebron from driving to the right and going to the hole on him . Lebron is the best all around player of all time and that is a fact based on his stats , he can literally do everything . Now listen I understand Jordan is 6/6 in the finals it's obvious your gunna bring that up anyone would unless they're horrible at debating but I will address the 6/6 in the finals in my next argument but lebron will win 6 finals if not more in his career , and definitly have all of the finals MVP's unlike Kobe . Now I am going to paste a list of Lebron's career accomplishments REGULAR SEASON RECORDS 1st place all-time in career assists by a forward. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Week with 48 nominations. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Month with 29 nominations. 2nd place all-time in points scored in All-Star games with 278. Behind Kobe Bryant's 280. Only player in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists for their career. [24] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in four consecutive seasons. [25] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in a single season for at least seven seasons. [26] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, and 500 assists in a single season for at least seven seasons. [27] Only player in NBA history to win the NBA Player of the Month Award four times in two consecutive seasons. [28] Only player in NBA history to change teams after averaging at least 27 points, twice. [29] Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for 11 consecutive seasons. [30] One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for six consecutive seasons. [31] Includes Oscar Robertson, who achieved this eight consecutive times. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists in a single season for at least eight seasons. [32] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists in a season for at least six seasons. [33] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards in a span of five years. [34] Includes Bill Russell. One of two players in NBA history to win at least two NBA Most Valuable Player Awards for two different franchises. Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. One of two players in NBA history to lead NBA Finals in scoring, but play on a different team the following season. [35] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP, Finals MVP, and an Olympic Gold Medal in the same year. [36] Includes Michael Jordan (1992). One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in two consecutive seasons. Includes Michael Jordan. One of three players in NBA history to average 25 points per game for 11 consecutive seasons. Includes Jerry West and Karl Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP with a team, leave, and then come back. [37] Includes Allen Iverson and Moses Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, twice. [38] Includes Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 2000 points in a single season for at least nine seasons. [39] Includes Karl Malone (12 seasons), Michael Jordan (11), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (9). One of five players in NBA history to score at least 10 points in 500 consecutive games. [40] Includes Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Karl Malone. Currently 3rd all-time on the list with 641 games. One of five players in NBA history to win consecutive Finals MVP Awards. [41] Includes Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Kobe Bryant. One of five players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. [42] Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain. One of five players in NBA history to change teams after leading the league in triple-doubles. [43] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Mickey Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Lance Stephenson. One of five players in NBA history to score 50+ points multiple times for two different teams. [44] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Pete Maravich, Bernard King, and Carmelo Anthony. One of six players in NBA history to average at least 27 points for their career. [45] Includes Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Kevin Durant. One of eight players in NBA history to lead a franchise in points, assists, and steals. [46] Includes Kevin Garnett, Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Randy Smith, Isiah Thomas, and Dwyane Wade. SeasonEdit Only player in NBA History to win the NBA Player of the Month Award five times in a single season. [28] Only player in NBA history to post 30 or more points and shoot over 60 percent for six consecutive games in a single season. [47] One of two players in NBA history to receive all but one vote for the NBA Most Valuable Player Award in a single season. [48] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 30 points and 10 assists in a calendar month while playing at least 10 games. [49] Includes Russell Westbrook (achieved this twice, in one season) One of three players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists in a single season. [50] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this five times) and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists in their rookie season. [51] Includes Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Tyreke Evans. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 31 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. [52] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this twice), Jerry West, and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to lead their team in all five major statistical categories (total points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals) in a single season (2008"09 season). [53] Includes Dave Cowens (1977"78), Scottie Pippen (1994"95) and Kevin Garnett (2002"03). One of six players in NBA history to record 2,000 points and 600 assists in a single season. [54] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this seven times), John Havlicek (achieved this twice), Tiny Archibald (achieved this twice), Derrick Rose, and Michael Jordan. GameEdit Only player in NBA history to record at least 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists in a game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 31 points, 19 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in a game. One of three players in NBA history to record at least 33 points, 12 assists, and 9 rebounds in a game. Includes Michael Jordan and Nate Robinson. One of four players in NBA history to record at least 61 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists in a game. Includes Michael Jordan, David Robinson, and Tracy McGrady. PlayoffsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time being a leader in points, rebounds and assists on 37 occasions. 24 more games than next player on the list Larry Bird with (13). 1st place all-time for scoring average in game 7s with 34.4 points per game. 1st place all-time for scoring average in elimination games with 31.7 points per game. [55] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 88. [56][57] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 39. [56][58] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 58. 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 28. [59][60] T-1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists with 8. Tied with Oscar Robertson. 2nd place all-time for consecutive 20-point games to start a playoff career with 19. [61] Behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 27 consecutive games. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the playoffs with 14. Behind Magic Johnson's 30 triple-doubles. 3rd place all-time for consecutive 20-point playoff games with 54. [62] Behind Wilt Chamberlain's 126 and 92 consecutive games. T-3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 45 points with 7. [63] Tied with Allen Iverson. Behind Michael Jordan (23) and Wilt Chamberlain (8) 3rd place all-time for scoring average in first 150 playoff games with 28.1. [64] Behind Michael Jordan and Jerry West. 3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 30 points with 80. Behind Michael Jordan (109) and Kobe Bryant (88). 3rd place all-time for free throws made in the playoffs with 1,273. Behind Michael Jordan (1,463) and Kobe Bryant (1,320). Only player in NBA history to shoot at least 50 percent in 9 consecutive playoff games while attempting at least 15 FGs. [65] Only player in NBA history to average 28 points, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists in their playoff career. [66] Only player in NBA history to record 5,000 points, 1,500 rebounds, and 1,000 assists in their playoff career. Only player in NBA history to play 20 playoff games in 5 consecutive seasons. One of three players in NBA history to average 30 points and 10 rebounds when facing elimination. [67] Includes Wilt Chamberlain and Anthony Davis. One of nine players in NBA history to play in the NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K. C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey. Single PostseasonEdit Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 16 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason. [68][69] Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 14 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason, multiple times. [68][69] One of two players in NBA history to average 30 points, 11 rebounds and 8 assists per game in a single post season. Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to record 600 points, 200 rebounds, and 100 assists in a single postseason twice. Includes Larry Bird. SeriesEdit Only player in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 9 assists in a playoff series (2015 Conference Finals vs. Atlanta Hawks). [70] One of five players in NBA History to average at least 33.8 points and 7.3 assists in a playoff series. Includes Michael Jordan (achieved this three times), Jerry West (achieved twice), Tracy McGrady, and Stephen Curry. GameEdit Most consecutive points scored for a team in a playoff game with 25 consecutive points at the Detroit Pistons on May 31, 2007. [71] Only player in NBA history to score at least 49 points in a playoff game for two different franchises. [72] Only player in NBA history to record at least 37 points, 18 rebounds, and 13 assists in a playoff game. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 45 points, 15 rebounds, and 5 assists in a playoff game. [73] Includes Wilt Chamberlain. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in their playoff debut. [74] Includes Johnny McCarthy and Magic Johnson. NBA FinalsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time for triple-doubles with at least 30 points in the NBA Finals with 3. 1st place all-time for three-point field goals attempted in the NBA Finals with 167. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the NBA Finals with 6. Behind Magic Johnson's 8 triple-doubles. T-2nd place all-time for three-point field goals made in the NBA Finals with 55. Tied with Ray Allen. Behind Robert Horry's 56. Only player in NBA history to play in five consecutive NBA Finals, doing so with different teams. One of three players in NBA history to play in the All-Star Game and NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell and Bob Cousy. SeriesEdit Most points scored in first three games with (123) in 2015 NBA Finals. 1st place all-time for most points scored and assisted per game in an NBA Finals series with 57.7[75] 2nd place all-time for highest percentage of team points in an NBA Finals series. [76] Behind Michael Jordan's 38.4%; James accounted for 38.3% of his team's points in the 2015 NBA Finals. Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists in an NBA Finals series (accomplished this three times). [77] Only player in NBA history to lead both teams in points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finals series. Only player in NBA history to average 35 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists in an NBA Finals series. James averaged 35.8 points, 13.3 rebounds, 8.8 assists in the 2015 NBA Finals. One of three players in NBA history to score 40 points in at least three games in a single NBA Finals series. Includes Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. GameEdit T-1st place all-time for points scored in an NBA Finals Game 1 loss with 44. Tied with Shaquille O'Neal. Only player in NBA history to score at least 40 points and record at least half of his team's assists in an NBA Finalsgame, achieved this twice in a single NBA Finals series. [78] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in an NBA Finals game. [79] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 14 rebounds, and 11 assists in an NBA Finals game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 32 points, 18 rebounds, and 9 assists in an NBA Finals game. One of two players in NBA history to produce outright game highs of points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finalsgame. [80] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 35 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists in an NBA Finals game. [81] Includes James Worthy. One of two players in NBA history to record a triple-double with at least 40 points in an NBA Finals game. [82] Includes Jerry West. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an elimination game in an NBA Finals game. [83] Includes Bill Russell and James Worthy. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in Games 6 and 7 of the NBA Finals in the same season. [84] Includes Jerry West (achieved this twice), Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. One of five players in NBA history to score at least 40 points in a regular-season game and then do it again against the same opponent in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [85] Includes George Mikan, Jerry West, Allen Iverson, and Kobe Bryant. One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an NBA Finals clinching game. [86] Includes Magic Johnson (twice, 1982 and 1985), Larry Bird (1986), James Worthy (1988), Tim Duncan (2003), and Draymond Green (2015). One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [87] Includes Wilt Chamberlain (1967), Walt Frazier (1972), Dave Cowens (1976), Magic Johnson (1991), and Jason Kidd(2002). Youngest player recordsEdit James owns numerous NBA "youngest player" records. He is the youngest1 To be selected #1 overall draft pick (18 years of age). [citation needed] To be named NBA Rookie of the Year (19 years of age). [citation needed] To score most points by prep-to-pro player in their professional debut with (25) To record a triple-double (20 years, 20 days). [88] Recorded 27 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists on January 19, 2005 vs. Portland Trail Blazers. To record a triple-double in the playoffs. (21 years, 113 days). [citation needed] Recorded 32 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists on April 22, 2006 vs. Washington Wizards. To score 30 points in a game (18 years, 334 days). [citation needed] Recorded 33 points on November 29, 2003 vs. Memphis Grizzlies To score 40 points in a game (19 years, 88 days). [citation needed] Recorded 41 points on March 27, 2004 vs. New Jersey Nets. To score 2,000 points in a season (2004"05). [citation needed] To average at least 30 points per game in the NBA. To be awarded All-NBA honors (2004"05). [citation needed] To be named to the All-NBA first team (21 years, 138 days). [citation needed] To win an All-Star Game MVP (21 years, 55 days). [citation needed] To lead the league in All-Star voting (22 years, 26 days). [citation needed] To score 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons (26 years of age). [citation needed] To win Most Valuable Player award four times (28 years of age). [citation needed] To reach 4,000 playoff points (29 years of age). [89] To reach 5,000 playoff points (30 years of age). Every point milestone from 1,000 up to 24,000[90][91][92][93][94][95] |
28 | 181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00004-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal. Alright! Good arguments! Here are my refutations. Your first argument is this: "The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 years (M.H. Silbert and A.M. Pines, 1982, "Victimization of street prostitutes, Victimology: An International Journal, 7: 122-133) or 14 years (D.Kelly Weisberg, 1985, Children of the Night: A Study of Adolescent Prostitution, Lexington, Mass, Toronto). Most of these 13 or 14 year old girls were recruited or coerced into prostitution. Others were "traditional wives" without job skills who escaped from or were abandoned by abusive husbands and went into prostitution to support themselves and their children. (Denise Gamache and Evelina Giobbe, Prostitution: Oppression Disguised as Liberation, National Coalition against Domestic Violence, 1990)" [1] 1. Take this source as my first reason prostitution should not be legalized. I am fully aware that you believe sexual intercourse with an underage person should not be allowed. If we use some deductive reasoning, how many teenagers smoke before they are the age of 18 (the legal age to smoke). What about alcohol? If prostitution is legalized, it is highly likely that underage females from very low income areas will try to capitalize on an opportunity to make some money. It is very possible that they would lie about their age and begin a career in prostitution. My refutation to that is even if prostitution remains illegal, this same kind of underage of prostitution would occur. Your points heavily imply that underage girls would lie about there age to begin a career in prostitution, however, therefore slightly increasing the number of people being introduced to the trade of prostitution. Whether or not your point is valid or not, that still should NOT affect just some random, normal people who want to conduct a safe business transaction. I.e. The x and y example I gave in round 1. Your reason is basically painting everyone with the same brush. Isn't it better to legalize it and regulate it to eliminate the problem of underage prostitution? Oh, one more thing: "Others were "traditional wives" without job skills who escaped from or were abandoned by abusive husbands and went into prostitution to support themselves and their children." Well, if they didn't have any other skills, and they needed to support their family, isn't it a good thing that they went into prostitution? "Personally, it should be a fundamental right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and whichever way you want as long as both parties agree to the proceedings." -People already have the right to do this. No issue needs to be addressed there. Well, actually, no. X couldn't go up to y, offer him money for sex, and then have consensual sex, because of this draconian, invasive law. In this example of prostitution I give, all the criteria I listed above is met, and they are still not allowed to do it. Therefore, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. SIDE NOTE: They are not hurting anyone. X wants sex, y wants money, they make a deal that helps both of them! Maybe y likes having sex? Who knows! "Some arguments against the legalization of prostitution are semi-valid, usually to the theme of health risks and such" -Health risks are a small part of the issues associated with prostitution. I prefer to look into the dramatic increase in physical abuse and sexual assaults that would create a much larger burden on law enforcement agencies across the United States. I will jump into those statistics in later arguments. Further, we will also talk about the high rate of victims of child molestation jumping into prostitution. We will also talk about how many drug addicts (meth, crack, heroin), quickly lose money and revert to prostitution as a means to finance another criminal offense. Ready to address this when it comes up. "Other arguments attempt to define prostitution as a moral issue by saying it's demeaning and should therefore be illegal" -Prostitution is very demeaning to women and is also immoral. However, I will address other issues associated with Prostitution. Some prostitutes might actually enjoy sex and do not necessarily view it as immoral. What is so wrong about mutually beneficial transaction that does not hurt anyone else? What's so demeaning about that? And besides, when prostitutes entered the biz, they accepted the premise that it would be "demeaning" (Which it isn't.) "You should not enforce subjective morality onto others" -Are you suggesting we legalize all criminal behavior? My arguments will focus on the prostitutes as victims. When you encourage prostitution, a large percentage of females that will start prostitution will start at a very young age as my source identified earlier. How many people start smoking in their thirties? No, I'm not suggesting we should legalize all criminal behavior. When someone, without the other persons consent, harms them in a significant way, that's illegal. However, prostitution has consent on both sides and no significant harm, therefore relying on a subjective moral value judgement in order to make it illegal. For example, if I started a religion that said drinking tea should be punished by getting stoned to death, that obviously would not become law since that's a subjective moral value judgement, and not one that everyone needs to take. 1. Legalizing something is not encouraging it. 2. Prostitution and smoking are two very different things. I doubt prostitution would be "the next big thing" for kids if it got legalized. All it would show is that two people can engage in consensual sex for money without fear of going to jail. All right, once more, good arguments from you. Good luck with your response. |
48 | e76f7b80-2019-04-18T18:21:51Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Drinking Age Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why? |
43 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
18 | ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. It seems that he decided to start arguing from round 1-really no problem- so I have to start with the rebuttals:"I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay" The main problem is that the money that all US citizens pay are not only used for building churches or keeping them clean. I hate to repeat the same things again and again so I advice you to read all the arguments (especially 7) and you'll relize why I support that. 1) Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions ofdollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economictimes:According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer,PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [6] 2) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith…I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional. " [1]3)A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines: As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused. " [2]4) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion:William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. " [3]5) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense:In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in Schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one person,nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars. "The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. " 6) Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified:Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [5] 7) American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year: US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [7] 8) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional: While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [8] 9) The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates: As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place. " [9]10) The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [10]11) A tax exemption is not a right: Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community. If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? It makes much more sense to see tax exemptions as a way to encourage organizations which work for the public benefit rather than personal profit and a means by which taxpayers put themselves at a relative tax disadvantage in exchange for the benefits the organizations provide. What this means, however, is that it is possible for the government to deny tax exemptions to those groups which are not benefitting the public and/or which are working against a compelling public policy — and that may include churches or other religious organizations. Tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege which the government bestows based upon the nature of what a group is doing. [11] Sources:[1]. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[2] Mark Twain's Notebook,1935[3]. https://supreme.justia.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.irs.gov...http://content.time.com...http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://supreme.justia.com...[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://nypost.com...http://www.entrepreneur.com... [7]. http://www.npr.org... [8]. http://www.irs.gov... [9]. http://www.patheos.com...; [10]. http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... [11]. http://atheism.about.com... |
20 | dabcc311-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00085-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Drinking is healthy in moderation. It is important to recognize that drinking in moderation is healthy. It is more healthy than abstaining from drinking, and, of course, it is more healthy than drinking in excess. It is important to teach minors healthy forms of drinking and unhealthy forms of drinking. |
48 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am bette |
4 | 2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools I would like to start off with the definition of corporal punishment, acquired from [1]. "Corporal punishment, physical chastisement of an offender. At one extreme it includes the death penalty (see capital punishment), but the term usually refers to punishments like flogging, caning, mutilation, and branding. Until c.1800, in many parts of the world, most crimes were punished thus, or by such practices as confinement in the pillory or stocks, which combined physical chastisement with the humiliation of an individual possible in a relatively small, cohesive society. Flogging was especially prevalent, being used also to keep order among the institutionalized insane and in schools and the armed forces. " I would like to remind the voters that this argument is based on corporal punishment in schools, not military, law enforcement, insane institutions, etc. I begin my argument with a list of the pros of corporal punishment in schools, which is what I will base my argument on. These are found on [2]. Teaches students discipline Deters bad behavior No suspensions Limits amount of educational disruptions These are several pros that can be justified in any modern day school system. With students today becoming more rowdy and rude towards teachers, less time is used for teaching, and more is used for issuing detentions, write ups, scolding in class, or other forms of punishment. This naturally would hardly deter any common misbehavior, as they would soon go back to their usual antics. Looking at the graph on [3], this illustrates how education in The United States has dropped from 1900 to present day. Keep in mind, the beginning of the 1900's to the late 1970's, corporal punishment was a widely used form of punishment in all schools across America. The message sent was clear. You go to school to learn, and you respect the teachers who give you this information. If the respect is not given, then you were punished. This undoubtedly kept students in line, a reason for the higher test scores. [4] shows the states who still use the method of corporal punishment, rarely, yet still in effect. For those who think corporal punishment allows for students to be physically "beat" I would like to use this next topic to show what forms of corporal punishment there are, and the restrictions. [5] lists the types of corporal punishment, and although many seems harsh, the most commonly used forms are that of canning, paddling, flogging and saucing. There are, however, restrictions set on corporal punishment, as seen in [6]. Such restrictions include male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, and vice versa with female teachers to male students. I end my debate here, as I still would like to include more arguments in my next round. I again thank Con for his acceptance to the debate, and hope for a fun clean interesting debate. I would like to remind voters that I am simply playing the devil's advocate and minority voice, and that the arguments may not reflect my personal opinion. I ask that you vote based on content and not beliefs, as these may not directly resemble my values. 1. . http://www.infoplease.com... 2. . http://www.ehow.com... 3. . http://www.google.com... 4. . http://www.infoplease.com... 5. . http://privateschool.about.com... 6. . http://www.educationrightscenter.org... |
41 | 574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00002-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great"for a while"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state. |
32 | e4c2d1c1-2019-04-18T15:26:29Z-00003-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Debate.org Should Abolish Open Voting in Favor of Judge "Select Winner" Voting Since my opponent has run into some troubles, I will also be outlining my constructive arguments, so as not to profit from their time shortage. Examples will this be presented later.A short foreword: The resolution contains multiple arguments. I do not have to disprove all of them to win this debate, one alone would be sufficient to break the chain of evidence. I will try to formulate a broad stance nonetheless.I agree that Open Voting is to be abolished.Yet, in favour of something else! I will argue below why Select Judge Voting is just as worthless. For now, I present my case for an Expert Jury system.PLAN: "Expert Jury" system allows debaters to nominate themselves as experts on certain broad fields (science, trivia, entertainment, religion, philosophy etc.). To qualify, they have to participate in at least three debates on that topic WITHOUT ANY FORFEIT FROM EITHER SIDE before being granted voting privileges FOR THAT FIELD. (Note: for the transition period from the current system to the new one, we will accept the current judging systems until a sufficiently large board of experts has been built up. The candidates will retain voting privileges for the old system while it is in place. Then, when enough jurors are found, the new system is introduced completely. The exact number has to be determined at another time.)Once a debate enters the voting period, an uneven number of jurors is selected and notified. To guarantee that only active users will be selected, the system picks the first jurors who log in and are not currently judging a debate. If we do not have enough jurors to make that work, this site is going down anyway. Voting is mandatory. Whoever enlists for the Expert Jury has to vote and can only quit after judging the ongoing debate. Solutions for problems that are to be expected are at hand, but will be presented in a successive round.Judging should follow the 7-point-system, but the Expert Jury would still work with the "Select Winner" option.ELO scores are to be abolished.SOLVENCY: "Debaters would probably take pride in being" EXPERT "judges and try to build good reputations online for being objective and neutral judges." (I thank my opponent for this great way of putting things, but I believe my concept supersedes his). This leads to a higher involvement of the judges, and pointless arguments in the comments and forums about the qualification of the judges would become less frequent.Unvoted debates would not have to be announced in the forum. They have become a matter of politics, with the current president making it a campaign goal to have no unvoted debates. The problem would be completely solved by an Expert Jury system, leading to less frustration among users.Only users with some experience on this site will be able to judge, making troll votes less frequent and nigh impossible. The quality of the votes will improve. Apology posts containing reasons for not voting will stop. Everything will become easier and less subject of conflict after voting.With the 7-point-system for voting, RFDs (reasons for decision) are more elaborate, building trust in the experts and educating inexperienced users on how to avoid certain mistakes the next time. Education is the main task of the Jury, while delivering a good debate is the job of the participants. Only with detailed RFDs, containing a judgement on conduct and language skills as well, can members improve their debating skills. Shorter RFDs leave them to learn all by themselves, slowing down improvement.Being judged by certified experts will encourage debaters to give it their all, increasing the quality of debates overall.It would also lessen the stress of wondering whether the selected judges from "Select Judge" will understand the topic at hand. This is particularly useful for new users who cannot select judges for lack of familiarity with the established members.The Expert Jury system has the definite advantage of basically having been tested in the real world: in court trials, the layman jury is given time and materials to become experts before passing their verdict. They are chosen randomly to prevent any corruption. So, the verdict is reached by randomly chosen laymen who familiarized themselves with a subject at hand. This is what my system would mimic, and there's little reason to suggest a system of that kind would not be just.Against "Select Judge" with ELO in place and "Select Winner" optionHarms1. Select Judge Voting, once made mandatory, is susceptible to varying forms of corruptiona) favoritism towards established members due to established friendshipsb) double accounts - we have several users who own parallel accounts. They could nominate themselves as judges, and nobody could tell. Only in randomizing the selection of judges are we relatively certain that no one votes for themselves!c) bloc parties - people who want to belong to the inner circle of established users, who want to work themselves up through the ranks, may easily be nominated as judges by friends of those members and be promised a place in those ranks for voting for a certain member. This is a particular risk since the established users communicate with each other outside of this site and can thus make promises surreptitiously. This leads to the formation of bloc parties that unanimously will support certain high-ranking users.2. The decision how the winner was chosen has to be transparent to counter any form of corruptiona) Choice of a winner will always be influenced by multiple factors, including personality/conduct. Voting should always represent the actual process of opinion-forming in order to prevent mere sympathy votes.b) When a weak debater wins over a new user because he is friends with the judges, this discourages people from debating on this site at all, since they get the feeling they can never beat the established debaters. We will thus have less members willing to stay on this site, and that would be totally against the very idea.3. ELO ranking deceives new usersa) Since ELO increases steadily even when beating new users, the ELO score tells nothing about the actual quality of a debater. The longer you stay, the higher the ELO.b) New users who don't know anyone on this site will believe that a high ELO makes a better judge, and will not question the choice of judges or nominate own candidates for judging, thus turning voting over to the "elite" of the site completely, giving them too much power.4. Delays are discouraginga) In the "Select Judge" system, you cannot simply start debating, just like it happened in this debate. Once a user accepts, they cannot even type "I accept" before at least one judge has agreed. Now, if the selected judges are on vacation or something, the debate may never start. If the time for giving arguments is short, a user might involuntarily forfeit a round, lest they check the site over and over again, to find out whether they finally may officially accept the debate. This is very frustrating, especially to new users. They come here to debate, not wait for judges they do not know. Selection of the judges has to be randomized among qualified experts AFTER the debate.b) If the judges do not accept, a lot of time passes, only for the debate to be cancelled. This would discourage even more experienced users.This site needs new users, and happy ones at that. The "Select Judge" system is only of slight advantage to established users, to new ones it is a discouraging disaster.It is thus better to abolish ELO than the 7-point-voting, and corruption can only be countered by randomizing voting. In this respect, both existing voting systems show the exact same weaknesses, and neither is of advantage over the other. My opponent's proposal would not ON AVERAGE deliver an improvement.As long as people can voluntarily decide to judge on a debate, there will always be a change of corruption and trolling. That is the core problem, and my opponent's proposal does nothing to remedy it. New users will still be at a distinct disadvantage, and that causes the current flood of new users who start debates, maybe finish one, but then never return or deliver multiple forfeits.Thanks all for reading. I look forward to my opponent's complete arguments and rebuttal. |
26 | 8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Okay let's wrap thing up here on both of our sides. Overall, having standardized testing in our school systems are more beneficial than bad. Let's recap, the cost is low, it prepares students for higher level testing, helps school systems need to see where they need to teach more of, helps compare different school's grades, sees where each student is at individually, and does help prepare the students for some jobs later on. My question to you is, "If standardized testing is mostly beneficial, then why should it be banned?" Other than that, that wraps up my part of this debate and I am looking forward to your argument as well. (It was very nice debating with you, in fact, I am having this debate for real at my middle school tommorow, so thanks for helping me prepare :) |
37 | 1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit "radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that "radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells" and has not been found to "cause cancer in animals" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov... |
5 | e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer's retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it's expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro's cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There's no denying there'll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It's probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro's cit.#3, the NCPA, "The NCPA's solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control". The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There's no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro's cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it's "assumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,"echoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That's paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states "Social Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans" then concludes "scaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts." Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it's recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let's assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don't look attractive considering ½ of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it'll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro's cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro's cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush's plan, in office at the time, hence the title "President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security."It's assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here's the catch, SS OASDI "would require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits"With his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there'll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They'll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro's cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:"The first part is that people are mishandling their money…"Just a reminder, you brought this up "Posted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM." You have a plan? It's great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It's paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You'll do it in 10? Pro's cit #9, 1995. Chili isn't the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro's cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier."The biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books." Pro's cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro's cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com... |
5 | 8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Abolish Social Security Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for 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. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation. |
48 | d20d622f-2019-04-18T19:15:59Z-00003-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 years of age. I negate the resolution, "the drinking age be lowered within the United States to 16 years while under the supervision of a parent or guardian and 18 years without supervision. " -OBSERVATION- The goal of this debate should be to determine which solution (more relaxed policies on alcohol on the affirmative, or the status quo on the negative) will ameliorate society by effectively discouraging drinking and reducing the negative side effects associated with alcohol. If my opponent can prove that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking, he has won. If I prove that lowering the drinking age will not improve the situation, I have won. -- CONTENTION: A lowered drinking age will encourage behavior that impedes the successful progress of society. By lowering the legal drinking age, the US government would be employing counterproductive policies. The goal of policy action with regard to the drinking age should always be to discourage and reduce drinking rates; however, it can be shown both empirically and logically that a lower drinking age will only spawn a rejuvenated and enlarged culture of drinking. This would have several dire and most concerning ramifications for the citizens of the United States. Empirically, the drinking age of 21 years old has been quite successful. The Washington Post of July 12th, 2009 cited a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry which reported that, because of the recently raised drinking age, "…young people more often have made the decision not to drink … when young people know that the law will be upheld, they adjust their behavior. " [1] This is significant because it shows that the drinking age is a successful policy. Moreover, this means that a lower drinking age would be a highly negative turn of events for society. Medline Plus, a service of the US National Library of Medicine and of the National Institutes of Health, affirmed on September 18th, 2009 that, "People who grew up in a place and time when they could legally buy alcohol before age 21 are more likely than others to be alcoholics or have a drug problem, even well into adulthood…" [2] This article cites research by Dr. Karen Norberg, a research instructor in psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Her recent study supported the hypothesis that drinking at an early age has profound, long-term detriments: she found through careful study that, "…people who had been allowed to buy liquor legally before age 21 were 33 percent more likely to have suffered from alcoholism in the year before they were surveyed. Drinking at a younger age also was found to increase the risk of abusing other drugs. Those allowed to drink legally before age 21 were 70 percent more likely to have had a problem with drugs than were those who had to wait until 21 to drink legally…" [2] Dr. Marc Galanter, director of the division of alcoholism and drug abuse at New York University School of Medicine, makes clear how serious this impact really is: "Even in [people's] 40s and 50s, this impact was felt. " [2] On top of the highly dangerous alcohol and drug problems set in motion by drinking at a young age, early use of alcohol makes teenagers more prone to activities resulting in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. A study conducted by Angela Fertig of the University of Georgia found this year that, "…a lower drinking age increases risky sexual behavior among young people, and that leads to more unplanned pregnancies that result in premature birth and low birth weight … when it's easier for young people to get alcohol, birth outcomes are worse. " [3] This is detrimental to the prosperity and high quality of life held dear by all Americans. This is significant because, "Teenagers who get pregnant unexpectedly are less likely to receive good prenatal care and may not take as much interest in the child as someone who tried to get pregnant … As a result of these behaviors on the mom's part, the child ends up with worse outcomes. " [3] The use of alcohol by young Americans is a serious problem that must be addressed; however, as I have shown, the drinking age of 21 is the best way we currently have to combat substance abuse and teenage pregnancy. -REFUTATIONS- I. My opponent's first contention is that Americans who are old enough to serve in the armed forces should similarly be allowed to use alcohol. He seems to believe that it would be beneficial to our servicemen and women to be allowed to drink. I have two responses to this argument: A. There are unique harms associated with drinking at an early age that are not present in military service at a young age. That is, military service is equally dangerous whether a soldier is 18 or 25 years old; on the other hand, drinking at age 18 is much more harmful than drinking at age 25. This is shown quite clearly in the Norberg and Fertig studies I cited in my argument. Therefore, it is logically reasonable to prevent teenagers from consuming harmful substances while not impeding their service to our country. B. If there is indeed a problem, it is not a problem with the drinking age, but rather with the minimum age of eligibility for military service. If my opponent is so concerned with the safety of our young ones, I ask him, why is it acceptable for teenagers to serve in the military? - II. My opponent's second contention is that teens feel a sense of rebellion when they secretively use alcohol, and that they would not feel the same thrill if it were legal for them to use alcohol. This argument is logically unreasonable. When an activity such as drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will certainly partake in that activity more frequently and to a greater extent. In fact, one way that many teens gain access to alcohol is through older friends. Now, that means an 18 year old getting a 22 year old friend to by him or her alcohol; but, if 18 year olds or even 16 year olds were suddenly allowed to buy alcohol, this would mean that 14 and 13 year olds would increasingly have access to such dangerous substances, which would only exacerbate the issues I presented in my contention. - III. My opponent's third contention is that responsible parents will teach responsible behavior to their children, but this rests on the assumption that responsibility comes naturally with age. Although this may be partially true, responsibility is largely taught by society's norms. After several generations of children who grow up drinking alcohol, experiencing substance abuse problems, and early pregnancies, the values we cherish today will likely be eroded to the point that parents would encourage risky behavior in their children. - IV. Finally, my opponent states that the cost to our legal system is a reason why we should change the drinking age. He is essentially arguing that we should make shoplifting legal so that we do not have to prosecute the shoplifters. -CONCLUSION- Vote CON. [1] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.nlm.nih.gov... ---> Methodology of the Norberg study: "Norberg … analyzed surveys of nearly 34,000 people born in the United States between 1948 and 1970, examining their records to determine if rates of alcoholism and drug abuse differed depending on their states' liquor-buying laws at the time the participants were teens or young adults. [This was possible because] In the early 1970s, 26 states lowered the drinking age to 18 after the federal voting age was lowered to 18, Norberg said. After passage in 1984 of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the federal government pressured states to increase the drinking age or forfeit highway funds. " [3] . http://www.uga.edu... |
23 | 25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00004-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | physician assisted suicide should be legalized I affirm: Physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician assisted suicide: The killing of a person by a physician, assuming consent of both physician and person, and proof that the person is mentally sound. Contention 1: Freedom of Choice People have a freedom of choice. Yes, this freedom has limits when others are in harm's way. But suicide is internal and personal. It affects others far less than it affects oneself. So in the end, it is a personal choice. Contention 2: An End To Suffering When someone is suffering, she may want it to just be over. She has no reason to continue living, so why should she? Requiring someone to continue living when she does not want to is terribly unjust: it is an intentional affliction of suffering unto someone. This is needless, and is why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Contention 3: Reduction of Traditional Suicide Those who are suicidal will not stop themselves from committing suicide simply because it is illegal. Personally-executed suicides are dangerous and have the potential to be very harmful due to the carelessness of the suicidal. But if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry. Subsequently, the government and health institutions will be able to document the suicides. Keeping accurate records of who has committed suicide greatly increases convenience for the hospitals and insurance companies. |
16 | f0840895-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00004-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | The US should legalize drugs. I. IntroThank you to my esteemed opponent, fire_wings, for accepting this challenge. I look forward to this debate!I will work to uphold values of personal liberty, as well as pragmatic reasons as to why the United States should legalize drugs. I therefore propose that whichever debater best upholds liberty and wins on a cost-benefit analysis wins the debate.II. LibertyIndividuals should be able to do whatever they choose so long as it does not directly harm other individuals. What a person chooses to do with his or her body is up to them. Consumption of drugs does not inherently lead to harm to others, so drugs should be legalized on this basis alone, as this should be a decision left to the individual. As British philosopher John Stuart Mill said "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."III. HealthUsers experience greater health risks under prohibition than not. If outlawed there are no regulations on it, meaning nothing to stop issues of potency, dirty needles, etc. As far as needles go, sharing is a very easy way to spread diseases. "In 2010, 8 percent of new HIV cases in the United States were attributed to IV drug use." [1] Furthermore, legalization allows users to feel safer in seeking out help with their addiction [2] which will make them more equipt to end their dependence. Other regulations as far as discriminating based on age and creating potency restrictions could also be created."Precisely because the drugs market is illegal, it cannot be regulated. Laws cannot discriminate between availability to children and adults. Governments cannot insist on minimum quality standards for cocaine; or warn asthma sufferers to avoid ecstasy; or demand that distributors take responsibility for the way their products are sold. With alcohol and tobacco, such restrictions are possible; with drugs, not. This increases the dangers to users, and especially to young or incompetent users. Illegality also puts a premium on selling strength: if each purchase is risky, then it makes sense to buy drugs in concentrated form. In the same way, Prohibition in the United States in the 1920s led to a fall in beer consumption but a rise in the drinking of hard liquor." [3]IV. EconomicsThe government spends $85 billion on enforcing drug policy annually [1] this is $85 billion in taxpayer money annually that could be spent on better projects including but not limited to infrastructure, scientific discovery, and education (particularly education on the harms of drugs) that benefit the community as a whole more than drug policy would. Additionally, as is evident by the case study in Colorado, the government will be provided a surplus from the taxation of drugs that can also work toward these same goals for civic progress. It's been estimated that this tax revenue could amount to $46.7 billion. [2] Furthermore, basic economics lets us know that prohibiting a good does not eliminate the demand for that good. The still-existing demand is instead fulfilled by the black market [1] which brings me to...V. Crime and The Drug WarAs stated previously, the market for drugs still exists. Instead, it forces buyers to illegal sellers. This helps give rise to criminal empires that use drugs as their main source of income. These organizations then attempt to corrupt government via bribes, threats, and infiltration."Colombia is the most egregious example, but Mexico too wrestles with the threat to the police and political honesty. The attempt to kill illicit crops poisons land and people. Drug money helps to prop up vile regimes in Myanmar and Afghanistan." [3]Legalization would work to take down these regimes. Instead of purchasing from drug-fueled criminal empires these same substances could be produced by legal entities, funneling profits away from the cartels, making them less powerful, and in turn less destructive.VI. Crime and PrisonPut simply, the US incarcerates too many people, and too much of this is due to drug offenses."Since the war on drugs began under Nixon, and escalated with Reagan, our prison population has skyrocketed 500 percent. Today, we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and nearly half a million people are in our prisons and jails for drug offenses, compared to under 50,000 in 1980." [2]This figure constitutes roughly 1/4 of our prison population. [3] In addition to it being ridiculous that individuals are jailed for a decision they decide to make to their own bodies, this brings other unique harms, the first of which is prison crowding. Essentially, prisons are too full. Many are over 200% capacity, leading to atrocious conditions."Two of the appended pictures show gymnasiums filled with beds, prisoners standing around in the narrow corridors between them. The third picture shows two cages the size of telephone booths. California locked suicidal prisoners inside such cages when there were no available beds in mental health facilities. Kennedy's opinion referenced a prisoner who was "held in such a cage for nearly 24 hours, standing in a pool of his own urine, unresponsive and nearly catatonic."" [4]This violates the 8th Amendment provision against cruel and unusual punishment. We must protect the rights of all inmates, and legalizing drug use would be an easy way to drastically reduce our prison population and in turn improve the life of all inmates.Additionally, imprisonment (unsurprisingly) has negative effects on the individual and the family, particularly in minority families, who are targeted at disproportional rates. [3]"Once incarcerated, users' prospects and those of their families, already often limited, instantly decrease. For the most part, when these folks enter jail, they're marginalized --disproportionately people of color and the poor -- but not violent or dangerous. But after months or years in custody, they become socialized to prison norms, where aggression is an asset and violence commonplace. Someone whose only crime is using a drug does not necessarily have any criminal tendencies, but when they come out of prison and can't find a job because of their record, many turn to crime, the only occupation they've been taught in prison. Almost two-thirds will re-offend within three years, clearly indicating that our current form of punishment is not a deterrent." [2]Imprisonment ruins entire lives due to simply ingesting a mind-altering substance. This also has a negative externality on society as a whole, as we create criminals out of individuals who were doing no harm to anyone except themselves to begin with.VII. ConclusionLegalizing drugs would provide a plethora of benefits, making it a pragmatic policy option. It would also align with personal freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. Therefore, from both a moral and cost-benefit standpoint, it is clear that the United States should legalize drug use.Thank you, now over to Con.VIII. Sources[1] https://www.cato.org...[2] http://www.dailykos.com...[3] http://www.economist.com...[4] http://www.newsweek.com... |
44 | 6a9138c8-2019-04-18T19:26:07Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Earth Day supporters contradict themselves. Thank you, mongeese, for your speedy response. My opponent presented two arguments this round: 1. "The point I'm trying to make is, the websites don't exactly accomplish the main goal of Earth Day supporters, which is to remind everybody that every day is Earth Day." The resolution at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of Earth Day supporters in their campaigning, only whether or not they continue campaigning after April 22nd. By demonstrating in Round 1 that they do, I have refuted Pro's claim. Questions on the usefulness of websites as advertising tools are irrelevant. 2. "Because the Earth Day supporters only make themselves and their phrase known on Earth Day, they contradict themselves, because they are basically saying that they should be having commercials and signs and such every day, but they don't." Pro's opening statement claimed Earth Day supporters do not "publicly announce" their message beyond April 22nd. However, I provided numerous sources in Round 1 showing that Earth Day supporters make themselves and their message known publicly all year long. Given that Pro did not restrict publicity to mean only commercials or signs, he has no grounds to argue on this matter. Websites constitute public announcements and Pro's claim is refuted. ::Conclusion:: My opponent has not refuted the fact that my sources demonstrate year-long advertising by Earth Day supporters, effectively defeating the resolution. Instead, he has attempted to shift the focus from publicity to effectiveness, claiming that Earth Day supporters must have "commercials and signs and such every day" to transmit their message. This is, of course, both a delayed attempt to amend the resolution and a blatantly restrictive use of the phrase "publicly announce." As the sources I provided in Round 1 are both open to the public and operating all year long, the resolution is negated. Thanks again to mongeese and I await his closing statements. |
37 | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)! |
40 | 33caf0a6-2019-04-18T18:21:33Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty is morally impermissible Thanks for accepting The judge should evaluate this round under a utilitarian framework, and maximize the body count, which increases the potential for value to life. To prove that the death penalty is not morally impermissible, all i have to do is give one scenario where the death penalty would be permissible. In many cases when the crime is severe, such as mass murder, the criminal deserves the death penalty. By giving the criminal the death penalty, we deter future criminals, reducing the crime rate. 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. |
21 | 66bd90cb-2019-04-18T18:11:34Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming I. The Universe and Global WarmingThe current state of the Galaxy and our Sun is affecting our temperatures. I. i. The Rest of the Solar SystemThe Sun clearly is in a warmer phase, because all of the other planets have increasing temperatures as well. "In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "[1]"'Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time? '"[2] Two things can be drawn from this. One, that if other planets are warming, that it is only natural for the Earth to be warming as well. And second, that even if all these planets did have natural causes, then that is a sign of Earth's natural climatic change, instead of man-made. I. ii. The Position of the Milky Way GalaxyEvery approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling. Currently, we are in a less populated area of the Milky Way, which means that less of these cosmic rays will be hitting the Earth, which means less cloud formation, and of course, warming. [3] for the source on this hypothesis. The sun can also cause this through evaporation. II. Earthly CausesThere are many internal causes of Global Warming as well. II. i. Ocean Current Anomalies Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature. ". .. one can model past temperatures as a linear trend (that started well before CO2 was added in any substantial quantity) and periodic bumps. .. . .. temperatures over the last 100+ years look a lot like a linear trend plus ocean cycle-driven bumps"[4] What is causing all the bumps? : [4] As shown in the graph, the PDO, or ocean currents, temperature has affected the average Earth's temperature. II. ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I. ii. I mentioned about the position of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun in regards to these "cosmic rays". Here is a more in depth look at the effects of position. "The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming. When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic race incidence), which in turn would have awarming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space before hitting the Earth. Here was a theory, then, that would increase the theoretical impact on climate of an active sun, and better explain why solar irradiance changes might be underestimating the effect of solar output changes on climate and temperatures. "[4]"Since he first suggested his hypothesis over a decade and a half ago, Svensmark and other researchers have slowly been putting together research to test it. " The results were: "Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added. Svensmark appears to have gotten it right. "[5] Proof here is in the next points. III. The 1500-Year Cycle This has to do with a cycle of the climate that can explain the warming. "Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials. "[6] Here is a graph related to this: [7]There are two things we can conclude from this graph. First, that up-and-down cycles are normal for the long-term climate. This century's global warming is nothing new. The second thing we can conclude, is that today's global warming is not as bad as the Medieval Warm Period's peak yet, and the Medieval Warm Period was less than the Holocene Maximum Period. "Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been. " In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished! "[7]"The scientists found evidence that on average, every 1,470 years, plus or minus 500 years, cold, ice-bearing waters, which today circulate around southern Greenland, pushed as far south as Great Britain. "[8] There seems to be a full cycle of up-down-up temperatures of the climate every 1470 years. And this goes as far back as at least 1 million years ago. Currently, we are in an upswing of temperatures, just coming off of the Little Ice Age, the peak to be in a few hundred years, making the peak-to-peak difference between today's global warming and the Medieval Warm Period a little less than 1500 years. So today's Global Warming is a natural, cyclical occurence. IV. The Sun: The Proof of Theories I. ii and II. iiThe sun's cycles have a lot to do with temperatures also. "In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth. "[9]"Svensmark matched the data on cosmic rays from the neutron monitor in Climax, Colorado, with the satellite measurements of solar irradiance from 1970 to 1990. Over the period between 1975 and 1989, he found cosmic rays decreased by 1.2 percent annually, amplifying the sun's change in irradiance about four-fold"[6]So, as the sun's activity increases, so does the temperature. This below graph shows the correlation: [10] This graph clearly shows that temperature goes up and down with solar activity, because an increase in solar activity directly correlates with an increase in average temperature 1-2 years later. And as a final side note, I would like to present this graph that helps disprove the anthropogenic cause theory, regarding again, ocean temperature anomalies: [4]So "nature" created the same temperature trend as "humans" did. Hmmm. Sources:[1]: . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]: . http://www.livescience.com...[3]: MacRae, Paul: "Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. " [4]: . http://www.climate-skeptic.com...[5]: . http://www.forbes.com...[6]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. "[7]: . http://www.isil.org...[8]: . http://www.sciencedaily.com...[9]: . http://www.eutimes.net...[10]: . http://www.petitionproject.org...; |
19 | 63346ee3-2019-04-18T18:10:40Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage In this round I will address the definitions, then offer some rebuttals to Con's case, and finally I will defend my case against his attacks. Definitions There does seem to be a bit of a disagreement on what "in the United States" should mean. Con argued that it ought to mean the federal level of government, I argued that it should merely mean any specific jurisdiction, but rather any level of government, be it municipal, state, or federal. In the end it is up to the voters, but I will point out that Con has not offered a reason why "in the United States" implies federal government, and not any jurisdiction within the United States. The other possible area of disagreement is whether marriage ought to constitute a legal union, or merely a social one. Con has not offered a reason to think marriage is not a legal union. It does not make sense for this debate to center around a purely social union, because that sort of union is already allowed to occur without government recognition. Even if we determine marriage is a social union, he has not offered a reason that such a union should not be legal. CON CASE He begins by saying that legalizing gay marriage gives the federal government authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. To begin with, marriage was already defined by the federal government to exclude gay couples and I have presented reasons why marriage should be made legal for heterosexual couples. Since the government defined what constitutes a legal union in the first place, they have the authority to change that definition. A1: Government should not be allowed to define personal relationships. The beginning of his case illustrates the flaw at the heart of my opponent's argument. This flaw is the difference between a purely social union without legal implications, and a legal union that has legal effects. Con argues that marriage ought to be a purely social institution, and the government should not be involved at all. I disagree with that notion (more on that in a minute), but it should be noted that even if we allow marriage to be free of government regulation, my argument still stands that gay people should be allowed to get married. My opponent really offers no strong opposition to the ideas of gay couples receiving equal marriage rights, he simply argues that marriage should not be controlled by the government. At this point I do not even need to disagree with my opponent's first two arguments in order to win, but I will address them anyway. He says that we are allowing the government to define personal relationships, but that is not really what occurs. What occurs is government recognition of an already existing relationship that allows a couple to receive certain benefits through legal recognition of their union. These benefits include such things as inheritance rights, the ability to visit a sick spouse in the hospital beyond visiting etc [1]. If marriage were not a legal institution, spouses would not be legally recognized as a family member of their partner. A comprehensive list of legal benefits resulting from marriage is available at the source I previously cited. Not only have I explained why marriage should be a legal institution, I have shown that if marriage were not a legal institution, gay people would be allowed to get married and the resolution would be affirmed! A2: Marriage would benefit all parties involved more if it were a strictly private institution. My opponent states that we ought to have contracts setting up the terms if a marriage were to terminate, however a contract is a legal document. This is basically what legal unions boil down to: a type of contract that is recognized by the government as signifying the legal joining of two unrelated people as family. Even though his point is irrelevant to gay people being allowed to get married, as his scenario would affirm the resolution, he is arguing for a legal contract recognizing a couples, which is basically what exists right now. A3: Gay marriage is simply a concession of defeat for the gay community. Here it is argued that rather than pushing for equality in marriage, gay couples should push for the abolishment of legal marriages period. I have already shown why legal unions are important, but if the gay community did push for no government recognized marriage at all, they would still be able to have marriages, and the resolution would be affirmed. I have shown that legally recognized marriage is important, but even if all of Con's points were true, the resolution would be affirmed. PRO CASE C1: Legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on society. Here my opponent attempts to undermine my conclusion by launching two weak and unfounded attacks on my premises. His attack on my first premise does not even address the premise. He writes: "P1 only legitimizes an immoral institution, which causes harm further down the road, not only for individuals that want to get married w/o meeting the criteria set by government, but for individuals that find themselves subject to other arbitrary standards set by a far away government. " He talks a great deal about marriage, but P1 does not concern marriage in the least. P1 states: Legalizing something causes happiness without causing harm has a positive impact on society. It is easy to see that his attack does not come close to dismantling this premise as he has not offered any reason why something that causes happiness without causing harm would not be a good thing. P1 stands with virtually no challenge to it at all. The argument against P2 also misses the mark, as his "alternative" would still allow for gay people to get married, and this would not harm anyone. P2 stands with no challenge as well. P1 stands, P2 stands, therefore, C1 stands. C2: Denying same-sex couples legally recognized marriage is a violation of civil rights. I agree with my opponent that "If government were not involved in marriage, there would be no violation of civil rights, because everyone would be free to set their own terms for marriage. " However, I have shown that marriage ought to be a legally recognized union, and even if it were not, the resolution would still be affirmed. C3: Legalizing same-sex marriage is beneficial to the economy. My opponent concedes that marriage is good for the economy, but says that marriage does not have to be recognized by law for celebrations to take place. I agree, but if a marriage had a legal weight, that would encourage more people to get married. There are same-sex couples that could be having celebrations recognizing their relationships, but they don't because they would not be receiving the legal benefits that are awarded to straight couples. Legalizing gay marriage would encourage more gay celebrations, thus helping the economy. CONCLUSION Con never really attacked my argument that legalizing gay marriage is good for society. His other two rebuttals hinged on the idea that marriage should not be a legal union, but I have shown why it is should be. His case also revolved around the idea that marriage should not be defined by the government, but again, I have shown why it should be a legal union, and not just a social one. I have also shown that even if his arguments are true, the resolution is still affirmed. It is clear that there are benefits for society if same-sex marriage was legalized. Source: [1]- . http://www.nolo.com... |
28 | 94b6864-2019-04-18T11:26:01Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized There is no crime without a victim. That's the universal moral rule. And in the United States, our laws are made to comply with indisputable morality- not religious/cultural morality (if the Amish made law, we'd have quite a different dress code) not subjective morality (vegans would have banned meat). Prostitution, however, is not inherently wrong except religiously, culturally, or individually. If one is forced or coerced into it, of course it is a heinous crime but that's not sex work- that's sexual trafficking. As long as there's no gray area, the worker gives clear consent, it is not the governments job to police his/her moral code or his/her body. It's a private matter, inapplicable to others. It's illogical to permit both commerce and sex but give jailtime when the two collide. On top of that, the criminalization of sex work can be dangerous to the workers- it can make it much more difficult to get out of the business if they choose to, as the cycle of jailtime, court, and recidivism creates financial trouble and vulnerability. Sex worker suicides are incredibly high, especially in situations of arrest, and the stigma of sex work caused by lawmakers makes it hard to reach out. Lastly, according to the Prostitution Act of 1996, no law has ever prevented or at all significantly manipulated statistics of sex work. Anti-prostitution laws are outdated, authoritarian, dangerous, and illogical in any form. |
7 | 70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00003-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. 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. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. "In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [8]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. Humans' Emission of CO2It would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[12][13][14]Another piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
11 | bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00006-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | That doping should be permitted in all sports Doping: administering drugs to an athlete in order to enhance sporting performance.If doping were to be permitted (I will refer to it as legal), this would mean unrestricted use. The drugs would not be allowed to be regulated, the use would be unrestricted. Since the topic is normative ("should"), the BoP is shared. My case for why doping should not be permitted in all sports is as follows. HealthIt is truism that doping enhances sporting performance. Already, 14-39% of athletes dope [1]. If it is legalized, this number will undoubtedly increase. The sports industry is extremely competitive, athletes are pushed and constantly pressured to go out there and perform, if they fail in that aspect, they are benched, or worse, dropped from the team. Also, if doping were made legal, then those who dope will have an advantage over those who don't, and thus those who don't will have to dope in order to stay in the athletic industry. From this we can conclude that in order to keep their jobs, and their fame, athletes are going to take all opportunities to increase their performance. Thus, if doping were to be legalized, there would be a very large increase in the amount of athletes that dope. The most popular doping drug is anabolic steroids. If doping was to be made legal, the usage of steroids would have a tremendous increase. This is bad, as steroids are very dangerous. The use of steroids can lead to baldness, infertility, impotence, prostate gland enlargement, severe acne, increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, liver abnormalities and tumors, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the "good" cholesterol), high blood pressure (hypertension), heart and circulatory problems, aggressive behaviors, rage or violence, psychiatric disorders, such as, drug dependence, infections or diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, inhibited growth and development, and risk of future health problems in teenagers [2]. Use of steroids can also cause severe depression, which leads to suicides [3]. This is devastating for the families of the victims, and anyone around them. "Brenda Marrero came upon her son Efrain surfing the Internet one day last October. When Efrain hid what was on the screen, she asked what he had been looking at. He turned and said he wanted to tell her something: He was using steroids.She called her husband, Frank, and they told Efrain he needed to stop, because steroids are dangerous."But Barry Bonds does it," his parents remember Efrain saying."That doesn't make it right," his father responded.To please his parents, Efrain retrieved a dozen pink pills, a vial of liquid and two syringes. His mother flushed the pills and kept the vial. Efrain, who played football, promised to stop using steroids. It was a promise that no one doubts he kept.Three and a half weeks later, Mrs. Marrero found Efrain in a bedroom at home, a bullet in his head, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. He left no explanation for his suicide. He had no history of depression or mental illness. He was 19." [4]There are thousands more stories like this. If doping were to be made legal, this would increase drastically. As well as the other health related issues associated with it. Unfair AdvantageEveryone responds to steroids differently [5]. If doping were to be legal, this would give athletes an unfair advantage over others, based not on skill, but on doping.Ruins Purpose of SportThe meaning of sports is in the values that it exhibits. The forms of human excellence it promotes, and how each athlete strives to perfect his or her skill. Doping ruins this purpose, and thus should not be permitted.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] http://www.evolutionary.org...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com... |
35 | d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00006-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | should vilent video games be banned Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. |
11 | ed50be0f-2019-04-18T18:18:18Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Drugs should be legalized. Yes, I do mean illegal drugs. I apologise for not making that clear. I will respond to your arguments and show why they are false in the next round when he unpacks them in more detail. In this round, I would like to explain my argument on why illegal drugs are creating a social underclass. When I say underclass, I do not mean a class of people who are of lesser value in society, but people who are trapped in a cycle of prison, unemployment and crime. I will explain. What happens with the majority of drug takers is that they get trapped in this cycle. They turn to drugs for whatever reason. Because the suppliers can charge whatever they want for it, the person cannot afford to pay for the drugs without turning to crime. In most cases, this means theft. Then they get arrested for either the criminal offence they have committed, or the fact that they have taken drugs. After a stint in jail, they have been surrounded by other criminals, without drugs for a year or more, and when released cannot get a job. The number of jobs at the moment is severely limited and so a criminal record will instantly see you crossed off the list. So they spend lots of time at home with nothing to do. What's an easy thing to do in your own home that brings you a small amount of pleasure in an otherwise awful life? Yep. You guessed it. So they get back into drugs, and the whole cycle starts again. Now the majority of the people in this cycle are black. . http://www.beckleyfoundation.org... Of the 353,000 people who were jailed for drug related offences in New York between 1997 and 2006, 52% were black. Only 15% were white. Black people are a victim of this vicious circle and if legalized, we can help a lost generation. The statistics from this website prove my point that drugs lead to a lot of theft cases: . http://www.bmstahoe.com... If legalized, this cycle can be stopped. Drugs will not be at prices which people can't afford. People will not need to resort to crime. Crime rate will be lowered and this social underclass will be stopped. There is another way in which legalizing drugs will help deal with crime. A lot of big criminal networks are funded by drugs. This is how they keep afloat. If their financial support is cut off, then they will become bankrupt and therefore the crime rate will be lowered. Legalizing drugs is dealing with the problem which is so deeply attached to Western culture, on every level. The users will be helped and rehabilitated, not punished and rejected. The dealers will be either prosecuted or go bankrupt. The criminal gangs will be put out of business. I eagerly await my partner's response. .. |
2 | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)! |
31 | 26130a2f-2019-04-18T14:25:08Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Homosexuality is a disease Running around naked protesting I would consider more of a mental disorder. People who are naked in public are either drunk or are mental, like homosexuals. |
5 | 7a272753-2019-04-18T17:24:42Z-00002-000 | Should social security be privatized? | increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA -----Background----- Thanks Pro for your arguments! Surely this kind of discussion is important at a time when the federal government is running a significant budget deficit and putting debt on the shoulders of my generation and the economy. For Fiscal Year 2014, federal government expenditures will be roughly $3.602 trillion. [1] The resolution basically states that "increasing taxes is necessary for the federal government's fiscal health." The Congressional Budget Office states that in 2014 we will have a $560 billion deficit. [1] Let us use this figure. -----Arguments----- C1: Cost to the Economy Pro basically says we need to hike taxes so that we can reduce the deficit. Empirical evidence indicates that "the tax multiplier is roughly 3 in the year or two following a tax shock", and additionally, "these results corroborate [other studies]". [2] So over time, collecting a dollar in tax revenue sharply contracts the economy by roughly a factor of three. The "total burden of collecting $1 in additional income taxes is between $1.30 and $1.50, not counting compliance costs." [3] Taking the midpoint of these projections and factoring in compliance costs yields us a reasonable estimate of $1.50 for each dollar of revenue for the total burden of raising tax revenue through federal income taxes. And this is the immediate impact, not the devastation over time. America's economy has been suffering for awhile now. Under President Obama, median household incomes are down by over $4,000. [4] A tax hike on the rich (which we already imposed) will only raise around $50 billion per year. [5] The deficit is still $560 billion. Labor income is about the equivalent of 60% of GDP (the remainder is capital income, interest, etc). [6] To eliminate the budget deficit, income taxes on the median income earner would need to be raised by almost 8.5 percentage points. - GDP at $16.646 trillion [1] - Labor Income at 60% of GDP [6] - Deficit + Negative Incentives at $840 billion (.840/ 9.9876 = 0.084) The average taxpayer pays an income tax rate of 10.1%. [7] After crunching the numbers (shown above), for the median taxpayer income taxes will need to be raised by about 8.4 percentage points. So for the middle class household earning about $50,700 [8]... their tax burden would go up by about $4,260. Can taxpayers really afford such a burden, especially at this time? And once the economy sharply recedes further from such a hot and horrid imposition, the deficit will remain. Raising income taxes, and any taxes in general, will reduce an individual's disposable income. With less income, future consumption patterns are shifted. There will be less investment and business activity as a result, and less savings. As a result, the economy will grow weaker, incomes will fall, and jobs will be shed. C2: Civil Liberties A laissez faire economy, with the free exchange of goods and services, is based on the voluntary decisions of the individual. Taxes reduce an individual's disposable income. They have less economic freedom as a result. Their decisions about how much to spend, invest, and save; their decisions regarding how much they work; these choices are all distorted. Tax hikes like Pro suggests would reduce America's economic freedom, and to the extent the ability of an individual to choose -- to that extent human dignity and conscious is eroded. Economic freedom is strongly correlated with higher average incomes, better health outcomes, and greater political freedom. [14] Prosperity thus emerges when people can keep most of the fruits of their labor and exchange them for their own wants how they see fit. The private sector is the source of America's economic power, and we must go back to this ideal. C3: Balance the Budget: Making Government Simpler and Smarter There are plenty of spending adjustments we can make! Let us remember that in fiscal year 2014 the projected budget deficit will be $560 billion. Budget Adjustments: 1. End the Drug War ($15.6 billion) [9] 2. Social Security Reform - Eliminate Fraud in the Social Security Disability Program ($36.25 billion) [1] [10] - Modernizing Social Security [Raising Retirement Age, Progressive Indexing] ($170 billion) [20] 3. Medicare Reform - Medicare Choice ($88 billion) [1] [11] - Cap Medicare Growth ($58.611 billion) [18] - Cut Payment Error Rate by 75% ($42.9 billion) [15] - Raise Retirement Age by 2 years ($12.5 billion) [26] 4. National Defense Improvements [17] - Reducing/Canceling unnecessary or unwanted systems ($38.58 billion) - Reforming Out-of-Control healthcare/ retirement costs ($61.86 billion) - Correcting Deficient/ Unnecessary processes and operations ($87.85 billion) - Ending the Overseas Wars ($79.4 billion) [19] - Ending Foreign Military Assistance ($14 billion) [28] 5. Eliminate LIHEAP ($3.02 billion) [12] 6. Limit TANF Benefits to 6 months ($14.53 billion) [12] [13] 7. Lawsuit Abuse Reform ($10 billion) [15] 9. Eliminate the Department of Energy ($28.789 billion) [16] [11] Re-Establish the Atomic Energy Commission 10. Eliminate the Department of Commerce ($5.868 billion) [11][16] Transfer the Bureau of the Census, International Trade Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association to other appropriate agencies 11. Eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development ($49.479 billion) [16] 12. Eliminate the Department of Labor ($74.3958 billion) [21] [22] [16] Maintaining the Bureau of Labor Statistics and OSHA 13. Privatize Air Traffic Control ($10.316) [23] 14. Eliminate Department of Agriculture ($95.4836 billion) [16] - Block Grant Food Stamps at FY2008 Levels [24] - Block Grant Child Nutrition FY2011 Levels [25] 15. Privatize the Corps of Engineers ($10.6 billion) [15] 16. End State and Local Justice Grants ($5 billion) [15] 17. End Head Start ($8.1 billion) [27] 18. Repeal Davis-Bacon Labor Laws ($9 billion) [15] 19. Eliminate the Department of Education ($3.028 billion) - Block Grant Education Funds at FY2008 Levels [16] 20. Eliminate the Department of Transportation ($28.8865 billion) [16] [29] - Block Grant Highway Infrastructure Funds (Increase by 25%) Total Cuts: $1.0620469 trillion ($502 billion surplus) Conclusion As I demonstrated above, there are plenty of spending cuts that we could make to balance the budget. These cuts are mostly noncontroversial to be bluntly honest. Liberals should embrace the idea that the states can control their own education systems, and the drug war as well as the foreign wars could be finished. Optimally we should cut government spending further and replace federal taxation with indirect consumption taxes, but that is beyond the scope of this debate. Tax hikes will reduce the economy's size and health even further. A $4000 tax hike will destroy many livelihoods, and is just bad economics. Instead, we should look to find efficiencies in government and cut Washington's wasteful spending. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Economic Report of the President (2005), p.77 [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 (Congressional Budget Office), PDF. [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] "A Clear Vision to Revitalize America" Rand Paul, FY2014, pg.98. PDF. [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com... [18] http://tinyurl.com... [19] http://tinyurl.com... [20] http://tinyurl.com... [21] http://tinyurl.com... [22] http://tinyurl.com... [23] http://tinyurl.com... [24] http://tinyurl.com... [25] http://tinyurl.com... [26] http://tinyurl.com... [27] http://tinyurl.com... [28] http://tinyurl.com... [29] http://tinyurl.com... |
24 | 5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Corporate Tax Should be Lowered What you state is easily dismissible. Instead of arguing the economic benefits, you argue political drawbacks. As of 2013, the United States has lead the world in Corporate Tax percentage, which is set at 39%. Our tax rate has not changed in a matter of 2 years, with regard to corporate tax. [1] On a ratio with our GDP, Corporate Taxes amount to 2% of our 18 trillion GDP, which amounts to $360 billion. While we pronounce ourselves to be the most Capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation on both our businesses and general income. Incorporation in Canada, which is famous for it's high taxes and government spending in relation to population, is easier and cheaper than incorporation in the United States. Our corporate tax is not only a burden but it is also a deterrent to future companies. I myself am working for a company made by American citizens but incorporated in Canada, due to their lower tax rate and fees. The main debate on Capitalism is that we get to keep our profits, if accumulated legally. The profits of companies are accumulated legally, and they deserve to keep those profits, regardless of moral implication. The main argument that many opponents of a lowered Corporate Tax create is that we cannot afford to lower it, which we most certainly can. Instead of professing about an increase in tax or a stability, we should decrease spending on par with a decrease in taxes. An overall incentive to incorporate in the United States will not only create an excess of jobs, but it will bring in an incredible amount of money. It is much more beneficial to tax 15% to 100 people, rather than taxing 39% to 50 people, as eventually, that number will decrease. Our current ideology is that instead of lowering taxes and fees, we will raise them as to create further burdens on the corporations that remain. Rand Paul, a ideologically Libertarian Republican presidential candidate stated that we have an excess of $2 trillion overseas, that we could bring into the United States if we lowered the Corporate Tax. "My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector." The public has no say as to whom may or may not invest into the private sector. It is not up to the collective decision of a public entity to dictate how and who invests into which specific private market. Most companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, have public stocks, which enable all willing parties to hold stocks in that specific company. The private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college. You seem to believe that taxes are collected and then distributed randomly. Each tax pays of each part of the government or public platform. This debate does not center over the complete abolishment of Corporate Tax, but instead centers around lowering this specific tax. Due to safety in investing in the United States, paired with a significantly lower Corporate Tax, we could bring in a great amount of companies as well as private sector jobs, and eventually make even more money in taxes than before. Sources: [1]http://taxfoundation.org... |
5 | a9a3f1c3-2019-04-18T11:57:38Z-00002-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Should teens have social media 'I believe that teens should have social media because it helps them to connect with friends , family and peers. But teens should be limited on how much social media in one day because back when I was in school 4 years ago teens spent most of their lunch break on social media bullying others if their siblings ruined their photo or if their voice sounded funny through the voice recorder on the phone or Ipad." Kids should not have social media because restrictions don't prevent bullying, can connect without the media, and social media contains inappropriate content. 1)Restrictions don't prevent bullying On Instagram let's say for example; implied a restriction for children under 18. Children can easily lie about their age, name, etc. Simple as cake. If kids were to be auto put on an instagram kids, it could not properly filter bad info out because humans could be humans are not care about these kids, just for general audience. 2)Connect with people without social media Phone numbers, schools, extracurricular activities, and hanging out can easily connect people. You do not need your phone to communicate with people as people have done it through most of our history 3) Social contains inappropriate info Little children should not be exposed to racism, nudity, pornography, vulgarity, etc. It leads to bad life choices in the future with being associated with the KKK, American Nazis, etc because of the social media ideas that influence them |
29 | cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00003-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens " nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org.... |
7 | 9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00041-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Prisoners right to vote Prisoner voting would undermine the public's sense of justice |
38 | f1e11ba4-2019-04-18T16:21:52Z-00008-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | 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 |
19 | 10978761-2019-04-18T20:01:56Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | gay marriage No matter what gender you are, you should be able to get married. Religion and state need to remain separate. I'm not satisfied with the status quo because there is no good reason for gay marriage to be illegal. |
3 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should insider trading 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; |
35 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | 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 |
32 | c7b72d87-2019-04-15T20:24:23Z-00000-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | opinion polls harm the democratic process. Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians. |
12 | 606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Birth Control is Immoral honestly i read the debate wrong and i just wanna surrender cause i don't wanna do it... |
45 | cff9b0f2-2019-04-18T15:14:59Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Abortion should stay legal My boy Tim. Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. You stated that abortion is not killing a human being because an embryo is not a human being, proved that they were not humans, then stated that they were not humans. Also your definition of a homo sapien is flawed. Babies that are born do not have superior mental development, cannot talk, and don't even have the neck muscles to hold their heads up. With that definition you could kill a new born, and you wouldn't be killing a human being. Also Abortion is murder since you are killing something that has potential to be a human. And the bible says that murder is wrong. |
18 | 8220b514-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Lebron James is a better player than Michael Jordan Let me note before my argument that I have PLENTY more stats and arguments to state but I will include that in my next argument these are just SOME of the reasons why Lebron is better I think lebron James is the best player in NBA history for many reasons , before I even get into the mutitude of stats and such that prove my point let me just say one thing , Jordan is a great player , in fact the second best player of all time , but Jordan could not take over a game in the many different ways Lebron does , Lebron can get everyone in loved and when he is on the court it is always 1 vs 5 until Lebron gets his teammates involved through his great play because we all know Lebron never has amazing teammates like Jordan did ( I will get into that in my next argument ) and the one thing even Lebron haters or Jordan lovers or at least anyone with a working brain will know is that Lebron is the most dominating physical specimen that has ever been in the history of all sports since the beginning of time ! Lebron is a better athlete than Jordan and a better all around player even the professionals who ride the Jordan bandwagon will admit that , that's obvious , no one can ever compare to lebrons physical ability . Now , since that is out of the way , Lebron is the all time SF assist leader and will most likely end up in the top 5 or 10 in assists leaders of all positions , lebron spreads the floor like no other player in the history of the sport , just like Scottie Pippen said , when lebron james is on the court , everyone is a threat to score . When Jordan played he was and still is the best scorer of all time but he didn't have the vision lebron has , it's not because of Jordan's amazing carrying abilities that no one on his team scored in double digits most of the time , it's because Jordan had the ball more than anyone by far and more time then not , he shot . That's why lebron is better in all around offense , lebron has a better FG% than Jordan because if he doesn't have a good shot he can throw a 40mph pass to a big down low that no one would consider open before that but lebron can get the pass in , or he can pass it across court to the open man at the 3 . Jordan , when he couldn't get a good shot off , he would still shoot it and miss most the time . Lebron all around offense , is better , lebron can get offensive boards , pass , and execute plays better than Jordan . On the defensive end , Jordan's DPOY doesn't mean anything when compared to lebron , back then lebron would have won multiple DPOY's , lebron can guard every position , he can guard 1-4 and lock down if he needs to and if he needs to be can guard a center for a play and have a pretty good chance against him . Jordan can only guard the SG and PG and the occasional SF but most were too big and strong for him , Jordan could steal the ball better than lebron but lebron can get boards and block better than Jordan , for example Lebron's signature chase down block . Now when the argument of who's more clutch comes , Lebron's most resent buzzer beater officially ties jordan for career made shots in the last seconds of a playoff game . And Jordan got almost all of his after he was 30 , and lebron is 30 now so lebron of you wanna be realistic , will end up getting more buzzer beaters than Jordan , and lebron in the lat 15 seconds of a game , has a better percentage than Jordan . So statistically and technically lebron is more clutch than Jordan ESPECIALLY in the playoffs . Unlike Lebron , without good teammates Jordan was HORRIBLE in the playoffs , did you know before Pippen joined him MJ was 1-9 in the playoffs in his career , 1-9 ! !! ! Lebron has NEVER LOST IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS ! He is the first player since the legend celtics to go to 5 finals in a row ! Jordan couldn't even get past the first round without Pippen ! ! Lebron is the best playoff player in the history of the NBA he just recently passed Jordan in amount of 30-5-5 playoff games with 52 but he has gotten more since then which means he has around 53-55 Jordan has 51 and lebron is no where near done in the playoffs ! 2 playoff games ago lebron put up numbers no other player in the NBA history has ever gotten , he just put up 37-18-13 IN THE PLAYOFFS ! No player has ever put up those numbers IN THE SEASON OR PLAYOFFS EVER ! Lebron is the best player ever when it comes to playoffs in the history of the NBA and you cannot argue that cause crushing I've said is facts . Lebron has countless records already over Jordan but j only have like 15 more minutes to answer this so i can't go into all of them until next round ! Lebron has the better per game stats than Jordan he averages more blocks steals and rebounds than Jordan for their careers after this past season stats get out into Lebron's career averages , lebron has somewhere just over 60 career playoff triple doubles in his 9th playoff appearance , Jordan has 39 after his 13th playoff appearance , lebron is ranked number 1 in NBA history with the highest scoring average per game on elimination playoff games with 31 , he is number 1 in games in the playoffs with at least 25-10-5 with 32 times , lebron took 726 games to reach at least 20,000 points and 5,000 assist , Jordan took 926 , Scottie Pippen told Alonzo mourning that lebron would " kick michael Jordan's *** in basketball , lebron has 159 10+ assist games , Jordan has 88 , lebron is the only player in history to reach 2,000 pts , 500 rebounds , 500 assists , and 100 steals for at least 7 seasons in a row , Jordan has only 2 of those seasons and there not even in a row , those were just his two best seasons , lebron has the most 30 point triple doubles Ever with 19 and Jordan has 17 , lebron is 60% in the last 5 seconds of the 4th quarter or overtime , Jordan is 45% , NOW MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS NEXT PART . .. . ALL OF THE STATS I JUST POSTED WERE RECORDED IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PAST SEASON SO AMOST ALL OF THESE STATS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER AND BIGGER SINCE THEN INCLUDING THE PLAYOFF STATS BECAUSE LEBRON HAS BEEN AMAZING THIS PLAYOFFS , all of Jordan's stats are never getting better , his career is over , lebron has at least 5-8 more seasons so he will surpass MJ in almost everything . Scottie Pippen said out of his own mouth , " Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to ever play the game , but Lebron may be the greatest player to ever play the game . .. No guy is not a threat when Lebron is on the court. " Skip Bayless of First Take said " Lebron is a better all around player than Jordan . He has more skills than Michael . " Stephen A Smith replied " we know that " Another debate Skip and Stephen also had was that skip thought MJ could guard Lebron and Stephen A Smith replied " you must be crazy , too big , too strong , too much of a locomotive coming at him , now I'm not saying Michael Jordan wouldn't be Michael Jordan , but if that's the case , why did Michael Jordan need Scottie Pippen to defend Magic Johnson when he won the world championship the first time around ? " which proves that MJ couldn't guard Lebron , Stephen A went on to say that Magic Johnson's athleticism doesn't scratch the surface of Lebron's . And the flight man himself has said he was guarding Lebron , he can't stop Lebron from driving to the right and going to the hole on him . Lebron is the best all around player of all time and that is a fact based on his stats , he can literally do everything . Now listen I understand Jordan is 6/6 in the finals it's obvious your gunna bring that up anyone would unless they're horrible at debating but I will address the 6/6 in the finals in my next argument but lebron will win 6 finals if not more in his career , and definitly have all of the finals MVP's unlike Kobe . Now I am going to paste a list of Lebron's career accomplishments REGULAR SEASON RECORDS 1st place all-time in career assists by a forward. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Week with 48 nominations. 1st place all-time being named Conference player of the Month with 29 nominations. 2nd place all-time in points scored in All-Star games with 278. Behind Kobe Bryant's 280. Only player in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists for their career. [24] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in four consecutive seasons. [25] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, 500 assists, and 100 steals in a single season for at least seven seasons. [26] Only player in NBA history to post at least 2000 points, 500 rebounds, and 500 assists in a single season for at least seven seasons. [27] Only player in NBA history to win the NBA Player of the Month Award four times in two consecutive seasons. [28] Only player in NBA history to change teams after averaging at least 27 points, twice. [29] Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for 11 consecutive seasons. [30] One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists for six consecutive seasons. [31] Includes Oscar Robertson, who achieved this eight consecutive times. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 6 assists in a single season for at least eight seasons. [32] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists in a season for at least six seasons. [33] Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards in a span of five years. [34] Includes Bill Russell. One of two players in NBA history to win at least two NBA Most Valuable Player Awards for two different franchises. Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. One of two players in NBA history to lead NBA Finals in scoring, but play on a different team the following season. [35] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP, Finals MVP, and an Olympic Gold Medal in the same year. [36] Includes Michael Jordan (1992). One of two players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in two consecutive seasons. Includes Michael Jordan. One of three players in NBA history to average 25 points per game for 11 consecutive seasons. Includes Jerry West and Karl Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP with a team, leave, and then come back. [37] Includes Allen Iverson and Moses Malone. One of three players in NBA history to win NBA MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, twice. [38] Includes Larry Bird and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 2000 points in a single season for at least nine seasons. [39] Includes Karl Malone (12 seasons), Michael Jordan (11), and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (9). One of five players in NBA history to score at least 10 points in 500 consecutive games. [40] Includes Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Karl Malone. Currently 3rd all-time on the list with 641 games. One of five players in NBA history to win consecutive Finals MVP Awards. [41] Includes Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Kobe Bryant. One of five players in NBA history to win four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. [42] Includes Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain. One of five players in NBA history to change teams after leading the league in triple-doubles. [43] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Mickey Johnson, Jason Kidd, and Lance Stephenson. One of five players in NBA history to score 50+ points multiple times for two different teams. [44] Includes Wilt Chamberlain, Pete Maravich, Bernard King, and Carmelo Anthony. One of six players in NBA history to average at least 27 points for their career. [45] Includes Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Kevin Durant. One of eight players in NBA history to lead a franchise in points, assists, and steals. [46] Includes Kevin Garnett, Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Randy Smith, Isiah Thomas, and Dwyane Wade. SeasonEdit Only player in NBA History to win the NBA Player of the Month Award five times in a single season. [28] Only player in NBA history to post 30 or more points and shoot over 60 percent for six consecutive games in a single season. [47] One of two players in NBA history to receive all but one vote for the NBA Most Valuable Player Award in a single season. [48] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to average at least 30 points and 10 assists in a calendar month while playing at least 10 games. [49] Includes Russell Westbrook (achieved this twice, in one season) One of three players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists in a single season. [50] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this five times) and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists in their rookie season. [51] Includes Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan, and Tyreke Evans. One of four players in NBA history to average at least 31 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. [52] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this twice), Jerry West, and Michael Jordan. One of four players in NBA history to lead their team in all five major statistical categories (total points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals) in a single season (2008"09 season). [53] Includes Dave Cowens (1977"78), Scottie Pippen (1994"95) and Kevin Garnett (2002"03). One of six players in NBA history to record 2,000 points and 600 assists in a single season. [54] Includes Oscar Robertson (achieved this seven times), John Havlicek (achieved this twice), Tiny Archibald (achieved this twice), Derrick Rose, and Michael Jordan. GameEdit Only player in NBA history to record at least 43 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists in a game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 31 points, 19 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in a game. One of three players in NBA history to record at least 33 points, 12 assists, and 9 rebounds in a game. Includes Michael Jordan and Nate Robinson. One of four players in NBA history to record at least 61 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists in a game. Includes Michael Jordan, David Robinson, and Tracy McGrady. PlayoffsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time being a leader in points, rebounds and assists on 37 occasions. 24 more games than next player on the list Larry Bird with (13). 1st place all-time for scoring average in game 7s with 34.4 points per game. 1st place all-time for scoring average in elimination games with 31.7 points per game. [55] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 88. [56][57] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 39. [56][58] 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists with 58. 1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists with 28. [59][60] T-1st place all-time for playoff games with at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists with 8. Tied with Oscar Robertson. 2nd place all-time for consecutive 20-point games to start a playoff career with 19. [61] Behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 27 consecutive games. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the playoffs with 14. Behind Magic Johnson's 30 triple-doubles. 3rd place all-time for consecutive 20-point playoff games with 54. [62] Behind Wilt Chamberlain's 126 and 92 consecutive games. T-3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 45 points with 7. [63] Tied with Allen Iverson. Behind Michael Jordan (23) and Wilt Chamberlain (8) 3rd place all-time for scoring average in first 150 playoff games with 28.1. [64] Behind Michael Jordan and Jerry West. 3rd place all-time for playoff games scoring at least 30 points with 80. Behind Michael Jordan (109) and Kobe Bryant (88). 3rd place all-time for free throws made in the playoffs with 1,273. Behind Michael Jordan (1,463) and Kobe Bryant (1,320). Only player in NBA history to shoot at least 50 percent in 9 consecutive playoff games while attempting at least 15 FGs. [65] Only player in NBA history to average 28 points, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists in their playoff career. [66] Only player in NBA history to record 5,000 points, 1,500 rebounds, and 1,000 assists in their playoff career. Only player in NBA history to play 20 playoff games in 5 consecutive seasons. One of three players in NBA history to average 30 points and 10 rebounds when facing elimination. [67] Includes Wilt Chamberlain and Anthony Davis. One of nine players in NBA history to play in the NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K. C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey. Single PostseasonEdit Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 16 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason. [68][69] Only player in NBA history to score at least 25 points in 14 consecutive playoff games in a single postseason, multiple times. [68][69] One of two players in NBA history to average 30 points, 11 rebounds and 8 assists per game in a single post season. Includes Oscar Robertson. One of two players in NBA history to record 600 points, 200 rebounds, and 100 assists in a single postseason twice. Includes Larry Bird. SeriesEdit Only player in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 9 assists in a playoff series (2015 Conference Finals vs. Atlanta Hawks). [70] One of five players in NBA History to average at least 33.8 points and 7.3 assists in a playoff series. Includes Michael Jordan (achieved this three times), Jerry West (achieved twice), Tracy McGrady, and Stephen Curry. GameEdit Most consecutive points scored for a team in a playoff game with 25 consecutive points at the Detroit Pistons on May 31, 2007. [71] Only player in NBA history to score at least 49 points in a playoff game for two different franchises. [72] Only player in NBA history to record at least 37 points, 18 rebounds, and 13 assists in a playoff game. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 45 points, 15 rebounds, and 5 assists in a playoff game. [73] Includes Wilt Chamberlain. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in their playoff debut. [74] Includes Johnny McCarthy and Magic Johnson. NBA FinalsEdit CareerEdit 1st place all-time for triple-doubles with at least 30 points in the NBA Finals with 3. 1st place all-time for three-point field goals attempted in the NBA Finals with 167. 2nd place all-time for triple-doubles in the NBA Finals with 6. Behind Magic Johnson's 8 triple-doubles. T-2nd place all-time for three-point field goals made in the NBA Finals with 55. Tied with Ray Allen. Behind Robert Horry's 56. Only player in NBA history to play in five consecutive NBA Finals, doing so with different teams. One of three players in NBA history to play in the All-Star Game and NBA Finals in five consecutive seasons. Includes Bill Russell and Bob Cousy. SeriesEdit Most points scored in first three games with (123) in 2015 NBA Finals. 1st place all-time for most points scored and assisted per game in an NBA Finals series with 57.7[75] 2nd place all-time for highest percentage of team points in an NBA Finals series. [76] Behind Michael Jordan's 38.4%; James accounted for 38.3% of his team's points in the 2015 NBA Finals. Only player in NBA history to average at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists in an NBA Finals series (accomplished this three times). [77] Only player in NBA history to lead both teams in points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finals series. Only player in NBA history to average 35 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists in an NBA Finals series. James averaged 35.8 points, 13.3 rebounds, 8.8 assists in the 2015 NBA Finals. One of three players in NBA history to score 40 points in at least three games in a single NBA Finals series. Includes Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. GameEdit T-1st place all-time for points scored in an NBA Finals Game 1 loss with 44. Tied with Shaquille O'Neal. Only player in NBA history to score at least 40 points and record at least half of his team's assists in an NBA Finalsgame, achieved this twice in a single NBA Finals series. [78] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists, and 4 steals in an NBA Finals game. [79] Only player in NBA history to record at least 40 points, 14 rebounds, and 11 assists in an NBA Finals game. Only player in NBA history to record at least 32 points, 18 rebounds, and 9 assists in an NBA Finals game. One of two players in NBA history to produce outright game highs of points, rebounds, and assists in an NBA Finalsgame. [80] Includes Shaquille O'Neal. One of two players in NBA history to record at least 35 points, 15 rebounds, and 10 assists in an NBA Finals game. [81] Includes James Worthy. One of two players in NBA history to record a triple-double with at least 40 points in an NBA Finals game. [82] Includes Jerry West. One of three players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an elimination game in an NBA Finals game. [83] Includes Bill Russell and James Worthy. One of four players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in Games 6 and 7 of the NBA Finals in the same season. [84] Includes Jerry West (achieved this twice), Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. One of five players in NBA history to score at least 40 points in a regular-season game and then do it again against the same opponent in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [85] Includes George Mikan, Jerry West, Allen Iverson, and Kobe Bryant. One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in an NBA Finals clinching game. [86] Includes Magic Johnson (twice, 1982 and 1985), Larry Bird (1986), James Worthy (1988), Tim Duncan (2003), and Draymond Green (2015). One of six players in NBA history to record a triple-double in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. [87] Includes Wilt Chamberlain (1967), Walt Frazier (1972), Dave Cowens (1976), Magic Johnson (1991), and Jason Kidd(2002). Youngest player recordsEdit James owns numerous NBA "youngest player" records. He is the youngest1 To be selected #1 overall draft pick (18 years of age). [citation needed] To be named NBA Rookie of the Year (19 years of age). [citation needed] To score most points by prep-to-pro player in their professional debut with (25) To record a triple-double (20 years, 20 days). [88] Recorded 27 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists on January 19, 2005 vs. Portland Trail Blazers. To record a triple-double in the playoffs. (21 years, 113 days). [citation needed] Recorded 32 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists on April 22, 2006 vs. Washington Wizards. To score 30 points in a game (18 years, 334 days). [citation needed] Recorded 33 points on November 29, 2003 vs. Memphis Grizzlies To score 40 points in a game (19 years, 88 days). [citation needed] Recorded 41 points on March 27, 2004 vs. New Jersey Nets. To score 2,000 points in a season (2004"05). [citation needed] To average at least 30 points per game in the NBA. To be awarded All-NBA honors (2004"05). [citation needed] To be named to the All-NBA first team (21 years, 138 days). [citation needed] To win an All-Star Game MVP (21 years, 55 days). [citation needed] To lead the league in All-Star voting (22 years, 26 days). [citation needed] To score 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons (26 years of age). [citation needed] To win Most Valuable Player award four times (28 years of age). [citation needed] To reach 4,000 playoff points (29 years of age). [89] To reach 5,000 playoff points (30 years of age). Every point milestone from 1,000 up to 24,000[90][91][92][93][94][95] |
32 | 4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00019-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Persuasion is more effective than coercion Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before. Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout. Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them? Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy. The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease. improve this |
10 | f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00003-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.CON's CASE"I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever."This is a cherry-picking fallacy. Just because one person, or even because several people, can live perfectly good lives having taken no or few vaccines does not mean, as a general policy, that it is a good idea to not vaccinate yourself or your children. There are two reasons why this is true. Firstly, the severity of the danger (the risk of catching serious illnesses like measles, chickenpox, or polio) outweigh any supposed benefits to not vaccinating yourself. Even if the risk of catching those diseases is low, these diseases are so serious that it is not worth even taking a low risk of catching them. For instance, before vaccines, measles killed about 545,000 per year, chickenpox killed about 8,900, and polio killed about 3,000. [1, 2, 3] These disease can also severely injure those they don't kill, for example, polio can lead to irreversible paralysis. [4, 5]"In this world there's not right or wrong, there is just point of view. You say it's right to vaccinate, I say it's not, who it's really right?...So, you say that responsibility and obligations it's doing what everyone thinks it's correct, but maybe responsibility it's just freedom, doing what we believe, and not what everyone tells you to do."Pro makes a claim about moral relativism, but offers no philosophical framework or justification to ground his position, so as such, it is unsubstantiated. Moreover, Pro's position would invariably mean that we could never hold anyone accountable for anything because we do "what we believe, and not what everyone tells [us] to do." So, if I believe wantonly torturing people for fun is moral, or if I believed that throwing a baby into a pool and watching them drown is moral, then, according to Pro's logic, I would be justified in doing those things. But clearly, this type of reasoning would lead to a totally unworkable society--morality creates implicit norms of behavior designed to bring order to humanity's chaos, and, therefore, if we were to embrace what Pro is saying, we would subsequently divorce ourselves from morality. In other words, Pro's argument subverts morality, which is not something we should countenance in this debate.But, even if we allow that when things are subjective we should leave people to their own devices (perhaps a more reasonable/charitable interpretation of Con's assertions), then we should still obligate action when things are obvious. The effectiveness of vaccines is not, as Con suggests, an issue of opinion; it is an issue of scientific fact. The overwhelming volume of evidence supports the fact that they work, and because it is fact--not opinion--that they are in the best interests of the child, we can morally compel parents to immunize their children."Who could you say for sure, that vaccines always had been the decisive point of decrease in eradicating diseases."I never made the claim that vaccines were always the "decisive point," I merely claimed that they were significant contributors, and that the facts show them to be effective."From the 40 reasons why you should never vaccinate infants...there are some that I would like to reinforce, like the huge side effects that most of people are unaware of."First of all, you cannot just refer people to a source and tell them to read it themselves, as this could easily be regarded as an attempt to circumvent character limits. Secondly, that source is riddled with innaccuracies. Allow me to point out a couple:The Article Claims: "The mercury, aluminum and live viruses in vaccines is behind the huge epidemic of autism (1 in 10 worldwide as per doctors in the USA), a fact that has been admitted by the US Vaccine Court."Reality: "in the case of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Case #98-916V), the battle over vaccine injuries moved into the courts. A panel of three special masters began hearing the first cases of the historic Omnibus Autism Proceedings in June 2007. The lead petitioners...claimed that Michelle's autism was caused by a vaccine...On February 12, 2009, the court ruled in three test cases that the combination of the MMR vaccine and thiomersal-containing vaccines were not to blame for autism." [6] In other like cases where the courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, they did not find that the vaccines were dangerous, rather, "the case was conceded without proof of causation." [6]The Article Claims: "Autistic children also suffer from severe bowel disorders. As per Dr Andrew Wakefield, this is due to the vaccine strain live measles virus in the MMR vaccine. Nearly all children become fully autistic after the MMR shot."Reality: "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield...is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." [7]There are no citations in the article, and the article of one man, who, as the abovementioned falsities suggest, is merely grasping at straws to make his case, cannot outweigh legions of other scientist and their more credible findings. Moreover, the writer of the article isn't even a medical expert: "Chatterjee was once a journalist with a national English-language daily newspaper in India. He moved on to a public sector company, rising to be a regional director of the company." [8]As for the other sources Con cites, their credibility is equally dubious, and one even admits, "Since they were introduced in the early 20th century, vaccines have been a tremendous medical and scientific success. Today perceived as a necessity, they are so familiar to us that their potential risks are rarely mentioned." Besides, even if you buy that there is an outside risk of autism, the proven benefits of vaccines outweigh that chance.Thus, I affirm.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://www.who.int...5 - http://www.ct.gov...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...7 - http://en.wikipedia.org...8 - http://encyclopediaantivaccinemovement.blogspot.com... |
21 | 61b46552-2019-04-18T12:33:29Z-00003-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Anthropogenic global climate change. R3 Rebuttals"Studies Contradict Man Made WarmingAnthropogenic climate change is not real. Yes, the climate changes, but humans aren't the cause of it." RepconThere are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority. "The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." [1]The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle. "The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming." [13]"Manipulation by Scientists and Bribing by the GovernmentOne of the biggest science scandals, Climategate, occurred in 2009. Hackers stole emails from scientists at the East Angelia Climatic Research Unit, and statements from the emails contradict anthropogenic climate change. " Repcon"Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW." [14]The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias."These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy." [15]"This bias completely destroys the point of researching issues like climate change. Research isn't supposed to be "Let's try to prove our political agenda.". It's supposed to be a non partisan look into an issue affecting our lives. How can we accept something as a fact if the people researching the issue are lying to us." RepconClimate scientists aren't lying to us. There are multiple safeguards in place to prevent this from happening. Just for starters the peer review system.As for Mars we understand so little about Mars atmosphere that this is weak evidence at best. Furthermore, the tempature increase on Mars can be explained by dust storms. "ConclusionThe empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations."[16]Solar activity from the Sun is at a low. "Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began." [16]Thanks for debating. Sources.13. https://skepticalscience.com...14. https://www.skepticalscience.com...15. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...16. https://www.skepticalscience.com... |
40 | efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | should the death penalty be allowed for drugs in americaca we belive to live however unless it hurts others killing over simple drug use is wrong |
29 | 1c270f65-2019-04-18T20:01:32Z-00004-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration. |
18 | c2b2fdab-2019-04-18T16:52:21Z-00001-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Abortion should remain legal. "That is why the person who hired the doctor/assassin would be given the worst punishment in that situation."But that would be giving exceptions to the definition of murder. I see that if the mother got a coat hanger and got the fetus out, yes she would be a "murderer." But, even though it is his job, under the definition I set, the doctor would be the "murderer." We can say that a police shot and killed someone because it was a last resort, but we will still say that it is murder, so why is a doctor any different? If the doctor is not the "murderer" than they are at least guilty by association.My opponent argued that miscarriage is "technically" involuntary manslaughter, but is undeserving of punishment.It isn't "technically" involuntary manslaughter, it is involuntary manslaughter. You stated that it shouldn't be punished because "it was not intentional and it was not preventable." That is exactly what you call involuntary manslughter- the unintentional killing of another human being.My opponent gives another scenario where it would not be acceptable to attack someone who enters your room.To this, I would like to show that there are laws aginst trespassing and that people do what the right to shoot trespassers if that is a last resort. If we want to parallel these, we can think of the fetus as a burglar because you don't expect when it comes most of the time and it takes all of your resources. So if we want to parallel this to someone trespassing, then how is it unacceptable to get rid of the fetus? My opponent stated that because the baby has the potential to grow, it is alive. A final scenario before I end my arguments. Pool floaties. Yes, an odd parallel. However, in order to get the floaty to grow, you must supply your oxygen and breath. This is what happens with a fetus- the mother gives is the resource that allows it to grow. I know it may not make sense to parallel a fetus to a floatie, but they are both able to grow when given someone's resources, so would it be safe to say, under your circumstance, that a floaty is alive? It can grow with other resources? No, that would be insane.Before I leave, I thought I added this earlier, but I did not. Euthanasia. When we pull the plug on someone who needs the support of a machine to live. Why do we find it moral to "relieve" someone from this after a period of time where there is no independent breathing, where there is no conscious mind? This is exactly what a fetus is.To conclude this debate, I used many sources whereas my opponent used morals over logic and science. My opponent, I believe through my readings, contrdicted their miscarriage argument as they called it involuntary manslaughter but should not be punished because it was "not intentional and could not be prevented." Thanks for the debate! |
24 | 2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested. |
1 | d23aca82-2019-04-18T16:11:12Z-00002-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Teachers should have guns sometimes you just got to roll the dice. schools do have security guards and have a weapon. with too many guns parents and students might get scared. |
5 | dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00001-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social security should be privatized. So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part. You're right, I didn't address your point about Chile very well, so I will do so now. First, Chile's system came out of the failure of their government social security program, so Chile probably isn't the best example to use. I suspect that if the data were available (I've looked but can't find it) you would discover that their new system is working much better than their previous, government-run system. Second, Chile is not the United States. That is to say, the United States has twice the per-capita GDP that Chile does. In a poor economy it is impossible for the vast majority of people to retire. In a more productive economy, more people can afford to retire. It stands to reason, then, that Chile would have a lower retirement rate regardless of what system they use. The fact that theirs is only 8 percentage points lower than ours is actually surprising, considering the relative level of prosperity in our two countries. The only role the government would have in a private system is to essentially force citizens to invest part of their wages into their private retirement account. This might require some auditing, but nothing more, hardly what you'd call a bureaucracy. The cost is irrelevant, as the costs of transitioning will only grow as the problem itself grows. There is no way to "fix" social security because it was a stupid, and wasteful plan to begin with. I would be interested to hear how you think we can fix it, other than to scrap it. The only solutions I have heard are either to raise payroll taxes or decrease benefits, neither of which is truly a solution. The federal government isn't independent of economic performance! The governments income, like all of our incomes, depends on the health of the economy. If the economy crashes as it did in the great depression, the government won't be any better equipped to support the elderly than the elderly themselves. I understand that concern, though. However, I know of no other way, short of investing in gold, to insulate oneself against something like the great depression. If such a thing ever does happen, I suspect providing for retirees will be the least of our concerns. Once again, I don't see any additional risk with private retirement accounts. As a person ages, their investments are gradually shifted to progressively less risky areas. By the time they retire, their life savings are in things like savings accounts, government bonds (which are at least as secure as social security), cash, and gold. At this point, they would be relatively insulated from risk. Those of us still in the workforce would be more likely to go on the welfare dole than retirees at that point! If social security didn't demand so much of our paychecks then I would be okay with having social security as something of a hedge. Unfortunately, it is a huge expense and provides very little benefit. If people had the extra cash to make social security just an overall part of their retirement plan it would be fine, but they don't. It is not as if everyone has a choice between in relying on social security or investing in private accounts on the side. Social security demands the funds that could otherwise be put into private accounts which actually earn interest! Those that CAN afford private investment are often fooled into thinking they don't need to invest for retirement because "social security will take care of me." Once again, you keep saying that welfare can be fixed, but I haven't heard you suggest how. There are only two sides of the social security system, income, and expense. Expenses are gradually beginning to exceed income, and it's only a matter of time before the social security budget is in the red. There are only two possible solutions: decrease benefits or increase taxes. That is the sign of a program doomed to failure. The only solution is to totally change the way we prepare for retirement. Personally, I'm tired of sending my money to the government when it could be earning 10 percent interest somewhere! |
42 | b2030785-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Dog fighting should be aloud Thank you for the debate. 1. "Dogs fight in the wild."- They fight in the wild to survive. Domesticated animals do not need to fight for "fun". Dog fights are held until one 'submits', which is usually death. 2. MMA has no relation to why dog fighting should be allowed. 3. "(Rules) insure 'ensure' the saftey of the dogs..." No, they don't. 4. "If they don't want to fight they don't have to." Dogs don't reatain the mental capacity to choose whether or not to fight. |
18 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | 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; |
49 | 3ffb3f24-2019-04-18T19:53:53Z-00004-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | should clothing be mandatory as it is well known that all humans born are not natural in garments but born of naked flesh then immediately are cloth and covered ,shamed. why is this because we are afraid of our naked truth ... we as humans have obtained shame from our first mother and father Adam and Eve .. it was those two who sin in the garden of eden forcing us to see our self's as grotesque and naked. "We live in an atmosphere of shame. We are ashamed of everything that is real about us; ashamed of ourselves, of our relatives, of our incomes, of our accents, of our opinions, of our experience, just as we are ashamed of our naked skins. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Tanner, in Man and Superman, act 1." and |
11 | 482332aa-2019-04-18T16:17:22Z-00009-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy 4 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. http://static.comicvine.com... gotanks flyig around the earth in seconds http://img819.imageshack.us... and goku fought on par with buu 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. http://img687.imageshack.us... 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; goku http://img704.imageshack.us... cell http://i1071.photobucket.com... 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. Superman cannot react and fight at the speed he travels, this is constantly shown throughout the comics. Failing to catch minigun fire. http://img407.imageshack.us... http://img23.imageshack.us... * 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://imagizer.imageshack.us... 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. 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 infinite power source 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 great feat of moveing 1/3 of the earth with the jla even in space still the only way superman 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... busting a dark moon almost killed him the question is who is faster goku or superman how fast is goku lets look http://static.comicvine.com... something to be truly invisible to the human eye it would have to be moving at the speed of light. http://www.youtube.com... |
28 | e410cf7a-2019-04-18T12:25:46Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should Be Legal A short debate.Not to be confused with the unrelated debate on the morality of prostitution, the debate here is concerned with whether or not Prostitution should be legal.To briefly state my case:Prostitution, whether it is prohibited by law or not, will always exist in Society. There will always be a Demand for sex, and likewise there will always be a Supply of it. Many of the woes that people claim come with legalized prostitution (pimping, child trafficking, forced prostitution) would actually be solved by legalizing prostitution as that the legal stigma would vanish. Both prostitutes and "johns" would have nothing to fear in approaching the police regarding potential crimes. However, those same crimes listed above are made worse when prostitution is illegal, both because of underworld economics and because prostitutes are less likely to go to police when they fear being arrested (as do their customers). |
47 | b233e2c5-2019-04-18T17:35:43Z-00002-000 | Is homework beneficial? | homework should be banned because its bad (I apologize, but I may seem a little less professional. I had very little sleep last night, so apologies in advance)"first of all, hw is boring... right? everyone can agree that its not FUN to do. so why should we do it? that question may seem stupid, but its true. if u have ur life taken away from u by hw, then thats immoral, because its no different then slavery." 1. I don't know what hw is, please clarify, and stop talking about two random letters that don't make up a word.2. Assuming you're talking about homework, it is meant to help reinforce what you learned in school earlier that day, to help you remember what you learned so you can be prepared for tests, finals, quizzes, etc.3. I don't see how homework can take your entire life away, as you are only in school (for the U.S. ) until you are about 18, unless you fail and have to retake a grade level, or go to college. 4. slave is defined primarily as: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another (http://www.merriam-webster.com... ). Homework cannot be slavery. It is not a person, and doesn't own anyone. Therefore, homework is nothing like slavery."however, if hw was helpful, then this argument would be wrong, right? most people think homework is helpful because teachers told them its helpful. but theres no prooof.... at alll. einstein never went to school or did any homework. neither did i. im smart, evne though im not 'book' smart. also, cavemen existed without homework for AGES and AGES and they were smart enough to become into people that go to the moon and invented ipods and computers. that means that homework is uncessary, because people didnt need it wen they did all this 'smart' people stuff."1. There is proof. I don't even have to use a link. I am the proof. Because of homework I have learned much about astronomy, physics, Edgar Allen Poe, and read the spectacular books, "Night" and "The Great Gatsby". Please show evidence as to how reading amazing books and learning spectacular new things is unhelpful.2. (About Albert Einstein) "Six weeks later the family moved to Munich, where he later on began his schooling at the Luitpold Gymnasium. Later, they moved to Italy and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896 he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree." (http://www.nobelprize.org...)3. But you do need school and homework. It helps build up your vocabulary and grammar so you can debate some random girl on the internet and gain the one point for spelling and grammar (I won't even touch on the positive effects homework can have in the long term). "2nd point: hw is bad because it makes u NON unique. therfore, being this makes u a robot, and u cant even think, ur like a caluclator that cant do anything but numbers (like how people tell you to do stuff)."1. "The nonacademic benefits of homework include fostering independence and responsibility." (http://education.stateuniversity.com...) 2. "A robot is a mechanical or virtual artificial agent, usually an electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry. " (http://en.wikipedia.org... And yes, I know not to completely trust wikipedia, feel free to argue this evidence) This definition proves that people that do homework are not robots, as they are not mechanical or virtual artificial agents.3rd point: hw makes people go to college, which costs a lot of money. things that cost a lot of money that dont give a person anything but paries are BAD and take away money from society to buy food and medical supplies1. Homework does not make you go to college, as anyone out of high school who aren't in college.2. Please clarify the rest of this point, I can't seem to grasp what you are saying. |
43 | 3b3189a0-2019-04-18T11:31:50Z-00004-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | smoking should be banned what kind of smoking are we talking about .... cigarettes i'm assuming yes it does cause cancer but not for a long period of time and most people who smoke they say it helps them de-stress if that's the way they choose to live their life so be it if this is the case we should ban paper because if you get a papercut and it gets infected you can die .... don't want lung cancer ? don't smoke .... |
17 | 87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00014-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Medical marijuana dispensaries Legalizing medical marijuana is not legalizing recreational use |
34 | c7bc79f5-2019-04-18T17:08:23Z-00001-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites. (Second version) Short and sweet, then. Extend all arguments.Please come back; you still have two more rounds to make a case!See you next round,J |
5 | 88df2c79-2019-04-18T15:49:36Z-00000-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Air should be privatized I would have been interested to see my opponent's replies. Guess we'll never know what Brian had to say. I win, VOTE ME. |
23 | 4487af89-2019-04-18T17:22:01Z-00005-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Assisted suicide should be legalized I being pro will argue for this. Let us define this (1)Assisted suicide is "Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician." Round 1: is accepting the debate. Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points |
28 | c351e266-2019-04-18T15:00:50Z-00005-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution. Thanks again to kasmic, and let's kick this debate off in style! I'll start by presenting my policy, which expands the system currently available in U.S. a state where prostitution is legal (Nevada) to all states by federal legislative means. This means that legal brothels will be opened and regulated like any other business, including wage laws, employment laws, and taxation. Brothels will be required to allocate a fair amount of money to their prostitutes rather than taking out a huge cut for themselves, as is currently the case. They will be required to have clean facilities, hire only adults, get their prostitutes tested regularly for STDs, and require the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy. Now that that's out of the way, let's move into advantages. 1) Safety The reality is that prostitution is alive and well in this country, and that it will happen whether or not we do anything about it. That system, however, allows the widespread harms that currently exist for them, and as this encompasses as many as 2 million people, it's not a problem we can ignore. The women involved in this system are often so afraid to leave it due to abuse by their pimps that even those who find it untenable cannot leave.[1] Beyond that, many women are simply dependent upon the money they earn in this system as other job opportunities are not available to them, often because they have suffered so much abuse as children, including rape and incest, that they simply don't have the wherewithal to take on another job.[2] This means that we're currently forcing them into these abusive situations in order to survive. Enforcement is, itself, harmful. 62,668 people were arrested in 2010 are arrested each year for solicitation of sex, taking up valuable police time and crowding our prisons and jails at huge cost through both the trial and incarceration.[3] This isn't just a cost issue (more on that later). There are actually two substantial problems with this. The first is a lack of reporting actual crimes like rape and forced sex, both things that happen in the current system. In many countries, police are actually contributing to the problem, and police in the U.S. have actively shut down information services that would ameliorate the problem.[4, 5] The second is that the psychological implications go well beyond the duration of imprisonment. Whether we're talking about PTSD, diminished self-worth, severe difficulties with reintegration into society, social withdrawal, interpersonal distrust, or any of the many other documented psychological harms to prisoners, this is a tremendous problem, and one that leads to breaking down families and lives.[6] The law also consigns prostitution to being a criminal enterprise, which is the reason why things like human trafficking are such tremendous concerns " an industry built on crime is not going to care if they add a few more illegal practices to the mix. A legal industry has a lot more to lose by engaging in blatantly illegal activities. Criminalization of prostitutes has actually done more harm than good, as "anti-trafficking discussions on demand have historically been stymied by anti-prostitution efforts to eradicate the sex work sector by criminalizing clients," which means that these efforts have simply "not reduced trafficking or sex work".[7] Looking at STDs, even the World Health Organization advocates for decriminalization for the sake of public health.[8] Nevada has substantially lowered their prevalence and incidence, to the point that a job that's more broadly legalized, namely porn stars, are actually in worse shape than prostitutes.[9] Even decriminalization, a very basic response that is only the most basic part of my policy, has been effective in other states like Rhode Island at reducing STD rates, as well as rape.[10, 11] Please note that this isn't just a benefit for the prostitutes themselves " sexual violence and STD incidence both decreased in the state population as a whole. Other studies have found that reduced homicide and rape rates country-wide are "anti-correlated with the availability of prostitution. It is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year."[12] The protection from physical abuse is even stronger. There are fewer instances of violence, rape and disease in the Nevada system.[13] I solve for a great deal of this just by allowing prostitutes mobility out from under abusive pimps and johns, who are responsible for an average of 16 and 33 reported rapes per year, respectively.[14] 82% are physically assaulted, 83% are threatened with a weapon, and nearly 70% have been raped since becoming a prostitute.[15] If implemented on a country-wide basis, it's estimated that we would have 25,000 fewer rapes in this country.[14] Murder, which goes at 20 times the national average among prostitutes, would also be ameliorated by both regulation and dramatically improved reporting structures.[15, 16] All of these impacts to life loss and suffering are dramatic. 2) Justice There are a number of reasons why prostitution should be legal for the sake of justice. But in order to understand this, I first need to frame what a job is. Fundamentally, a job is a negotiated task agreed to by legally consenting individuals, usually involving some pay being given to the person completing the task. As adult human beings, we have the freedom to take on any number of jobs, ranging from the mundane and safe to the extraordinary and dangerous. And the only thing that gets in the way of any individual adult's ability to acquire these jobs is finding someone who will hire you for the purpose. I would say that the ability for these negotiations to proceed is itself a civil liberty. Human beings have a fundamental right to work, something that can easily be established by looking at international law. We can look to any number of sources. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it plainly in Article 23.1.[17] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is unequivocal as well, and this can be found in Part III, Article 6.[18] I think these all firmly establish the right to work quite clearly, and as long as this right exists, it must be extended to all adult, capable human beings. So what does it mean to deny this right? It's dehumanizing. Denying work to people who would otherwise be able to get it denies their agency as individuals. The law is currently engaging in this dehumanization, engaging in the unjust decision to illegalize a line of work that 1% of all American women have engaged in at some point in their lives.[9] Since this is an industry dominated by women, it's even more unjust, as it's a discriminatory practice that predominantly affects a single sex. 3) Costs This breaks down into 2 sources of cost savings included in my policy. A) Arrests, court and incarceration fees Taken together, these average roughly $2,000 per arrestee. For cities, this means an average of $7.5 million on prostitution, and taken country-wide, that cost adds up to roughly $200 million per year.[19, 20] While the costs of regulation replace some of these, those costs are already built into basic regulation systems already in place, and the cost of expanding them to a new industry are minimal by comparison. B) Taxation Prostitution is an $18 billion industry, and even if we assume 0 growth following legalization, the government stands to earn $6 billion in federal income taxes and $2 billion in licensing fees.[21] In both cases, the resulting finances are substantial. Most of the costs and bureaucracies of regulation, as in Nevada, are borne by the brothels themselves, creating a barrier to entry that also ensures that unsavory owners simply cannot even start in the industry.[22] But these costs aren't the only ones that affect the capacities of criminals to engage in basic harms like human trafficking. A black market keeps prices high. Legalization reduces the pricing schemes for prostitutes, mainly as a result of competition and increased availability.[23] As such, those engaging in human trafficking garner reduced compensation. results in much reduced revenue for human traffickers. This might seem like a small issue, but a human trafficker is doing it for the money, and it costs quite a bit to kidnap someone, hold them against their will, transport them over long distances, and keep them docile after they arrive. These are not small concerns, and these costs are actually enhanced by regulations that would screen many of these women regularly, regulate these brothels directly, and allow these women contact with police that doesn't result in their incarceration. All of these reduce the economic benefit of acquiring sex slaves, and thus reduce their value. All of this means the government is receiving billions in revenue and paying hundreds of millions fewer to boot. Those funds can be spent on better enforcement of human trafficking, more effective education systems and rehabilitation facilities to give these women more job options, better health care systems, the list of possible options is tremendous. Any of them is a more effective choice than a failed system of enforcement that drives prostitution underground, leading to pimps controlling law enforcement with sexual favors and feeding organized crime.[24, 25] Over to Con! 1. bit.ly/1yfSJuL 2. bit.ly/1E7wL4w 3. bit.ly/1CVL5rx 4. bit.ly/1G2q1Dj 5. bit.ly/1ITpOpo 6. 1.usa.gov/1FOkAu5 7. bit.ly/1ETll3H 8. bit.ly/1qLoOpK 9. huff.to/1E7wpLI 10. on.wsj.com/1n3kAx5 11. wapo.st/1G4iy9E 12. bit.ly/1xjgS8z 13. bit.ly/1EI2KU2 14. bit.ly/1Cfg4Ra 15. bit.ly/1xDkByi 16. bit.ly/19pV7YM 17. bit.ly/1bnFjmW 18. bit.ly/J1E1V3 19. bit.ly/1HO6Yzy 20. bit.ly/1BPdv4F 21. bit.ly/1FOjv5h 22. read.bi/1H2Rggx 23. ti.me/1cU8ICJ 24. bit.ly/1Bx22Yz 25. bit.ly/1m3Hllw |
29 | f44bcd7f-2019-04-18T11:45:00Z-00000-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S. Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way. |
27 | ea8c172d-2019-04-18T11:17:10Z-00004-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control When I mean by gun control, I do not mean by the government banning and confiscating all guns, Like some liberal extremists do. I just mean to make gun laws stricter, Especially in states that lack enough gun control laws. I am taking the pro side and arguing for stricter gun laws, Especially in states that need more gun laws, And con will be arguing for against stricter gun laws. Con will start the next round. |
1 | 39b69e06-2019-04-18T19:45:40Z-00002-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | teacher pay should be raised With that said, I will explain why teachers pay should not be raised. But before I do that, let me say that the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. PRO must prove why teachers' pay should be raised, as she does not in R1. Contention 1: Pay is enough currently. Currently, teachers get an annual $47,602 (. http://www.aft.org...) The average salary for an American is $43,444 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As we can clearly see, teachers are earning more than the average person, so a pay raise would not be needed. Contention 2: Most teachers don't deserve it. Most teachers do not even earn the money they receive. 1/3 of Americans can not locate the US on a map, 3/4 can not locate Iraq on a map, and US high schoolers are the 2nd least educated (stupid, if you will) out of 13 major countries tested like Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and the UK. Indeed, certain teachers, like gym teachers, do not even put that much effort into their jobs and do not provide their students with the skills they need. Contention 3: Benefits. Teachers, in addition to the salary they receive, get multiple benefits. Most teachers get a guaranteed salary, summer break, free lunch, and a pension plan. Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal. |
37 | 40a0f14e-2019-04-18T12:22:58Z-00001-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | cell phones in school therefore my opponent isnt argueing which wont get him any pionts. |
24 | da116120-2019-04-18T16:15:25Z-00002-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Classic Robert Gauntlet Tournament: The current tax system should be replaced by the fair tax. Many thanks, once more, to Wylted for this debate. It's surely been interesting. In this round, I'm going to respond both to his constructive arguments and to his third round rebuttals. In Response to PRO's case: "Against the IRS" PRO's argument begins with a criticism of the IRS, and a poll to demonstrate that point. But, that people are dissatisfied with the IRS doesn't mean that FT (a specific kind of tax reform) should be adopted. Maybe the tax code does need to be changed. Maybe it doesn't. My burden here is only to show that whether the tax code is flawed or not, FT shouldn't replace the code we've got now. "A Simpler Code" As I've shown in the previous round, PRO's argument that FT simplifies things is without merit, but let's explore that point in more detail. FT is a simplification only to the extent that the burden it places on individuals when they file their taxes is comparably less than the status quo. When considering the impact that FT will have on the economy, wages, inflation and prices the magnitude of that burden is shown to be far more than PRO's made it seem. As I've stated in the previous round, at best the middle class is financially exactly as well off as they are now under FT, but even that's not accounting for the massive transition costs and similarly assuming 100% compliance. (1) Moreover, in positing that FT is simpler, PRO fails to account for the transition costs that necessarily follow from the status quo to the FT's implementation as much as he ignores the logistical problems of collection. As Bartlett (2007) explains, "massive evasion is inevitable with [FT] because all revenue would be collected at just one point in the entire economic system... final sales." (1) The impact, then, is that the "well developed reporting requirements for income that has been in place for many years and withholding of taxes to ensure compliance" is abandoned, and replaced under FT with a system which "makes the tax collection process very fragile" because it eases the extent to which tax evasion is possible and reduces the enforcement power for collecting taxes generally. (1, 4) It cannot be, then, that FT is "the best known available solution to the current system" as PRO argues because by collecting taxes only at the point of final sale, as FT proposes, FT is collecting taxes at the retail level which is empirically the level of "greatest evasion." (1) "More fairness, less loopholes" PRO contends that politicians "don't like [FT] because they can't reward their friends, [etc.]..." in considerable error because, once more quoting Bartlett (2007), there is no possibility that the FT or it's rebate "would be free of future political manipulation, as politicians decide that some groups deserve something extra and others deserve punishment - just as is the case with the tax code today." (1) And moreover, as Sullivan (1995) articulates "there is nothing in the history of the federal tax legislative process to suggest that a federal consumption tax would be untainted by special interest provisions." (5) "Revenue Neutral" I'm not really sure why PRO's arguing that revenue neutrality is a reason to adopt the FT, because even if it were true, if the tax system is revenue neutral than taxes are not lowered (which is bad if you're a Republican and lowering taxes is something you want) and also not raised (which is equally bad if you're in the business of making the wealthy pay their 'fair share -whatever that may be). But, what PRO doesn't realize is that FT is only revenue neutral if it achieves (a) 100% compliance for all those kinds of new taxes on things that weren't previously taxed like new houses, labor services, food (in some states), medical care and supplies, government transactions and the like and (b) people spend 100% of their annual incomes -which, as I explained in the previous round, just doesn't happen in all cases because as income rates go up, percentage of consumed income drops -and would probably drop even more because taxes on final sales would disincentivize consumption. (1, 4) And it's a but myopic to assume, for reasons mentioned above, that there could even feasibly be total compliance and even if there was, the burden of taxing all goods and services at the point of final sale would almost necessitate economic recession, barring some kind of intervention by the Fed which, even if it did happen -would make no one better off in PRO's world vs. the status quo. "23% Tax Burden" This is just not true. As Bartlett, quoting Linder and Chamberliss (here writing in the WSJ, 2007) explains, "In reality, [FT] is not 23%." This figure is arrived at "by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services... think of it this way: if a product costs $1 at retail, [FT] adds 30%, for a total of $1.30 Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, [FT] supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%." But even still, the impact to young adults who are in the process of establishing themselves is staggering, in that it unfairly penalizes "those who may need to borrow and consume heavily... by buying their first cars, first homes and all the furnishings that go with them, and possibly pay for the costs of child rearing as well." (1) Likewise, implementing FT would effectively leverage an insidious form of double taxation on those who saved their income at a time when income was taxed. (1) "Corporations are leaving" There is no evidence that even if corporations are shifting out of the United States, that the cause of their leaving could be remediated by implementing FT. PRO hasn't substantiated that point, because the evidence he offers only shows a marginal impact of what corporate taxes under the status quo. He's not offered anything that could lead us to believe that (a) those corporations which have left would come back, (b) that more corporations wouldn't leave for other reasons due to unanticipated costs under his plan, (c) that the aggregate economic costs of implementing/transitioning to FT wouldn't make the United States a more hostile environment to economic activity generally, or (d) that by requiring retail corporations to act as tax collectors, that their operations wouldn't be catastrophically be cut back, that consumer prices wouldn't increase or that consumption generally wouldn't be harmed because of the increased cost of doing business -any one of which would result in a harm much greater than the fractional benefit of individuals not having to file a 1040. "Banks" Ostensibly, passing taxes on consumption might have the effect of 'taxing' activity of the rich that was previously not taxed. But, if the super rich (those who have enough cash to hide it in Swiss Bank Accounts) have the kind of means to hide their money off shore, it's also probably the case that they have the means to buy (especially expensive luxury) products and high-cost services outside of the United States. FT would create a compelling incentive for them to do precisely that, because the super rich would save money by not buying goods and services in the United States. But moreover, there's no reason to think that not only the rich -but everyone- would collectively consume fewer goods and services if a 30% increase was to be leveraged on all goods and services in the US. Rather, there are a whole lot of reasons to assume that economic activity, when consumption is taxed, is going to stagnate whether there's a prebate or not -which is a harm that far outweighs any achievable good PRO's suggested might follow. (1, 2, 4) So, PRO's point about banking holds no water. Brief Response to PRO's most erroneous rebuttals to my case: PRO never actually countered Bartlett (2007)'s explanation that "there is essentially no relationship between the rebate and the cost of living or raising children." (1) He just explained why the rebate would exist under FT, but does not account for divergent costs of living in, say, New York versus Texas. Under FT, both New Yorker and Texan taxpayers get the same proportion of tax rebates paid to them every month -which both does not account for the difference in cost of living between NY and TX and amounts to a universal welfare policy insofar as it grants a literal stipend of cash to everyone without regard to whether they have income of their own or not. Calling welfare a prebate doesn't make it not welfare even if taxes are to be taken out of that check at the point of sale and the stipend is intended to offset those taxes. There's also a real difference between what I've said an what PRO refuted on this point.. I said: "Even still, FT's revenue neutrality rests on the erroneous assumption that "no matter how large a family's income, 100% of it is consumed every year," which is not the case. In reality, the percentage of a person's income being consumed by expenses falls as income rates rise." But he responds by saying "The FT revenue neutrality uses no such assumption. The plan exempts used goods from being taxed. Which is a key indicator that it isn't assuming 100% of income is taxed." I didn't say that 100% of income is taxed under FT, I said that FT is revenue neutral only if 100% of income "is consumed" meaning 100% is spent on taxable goods and services. As I've said before, that's just not the case. (1) (PRO's continues to make a lot of assumptions about FT that just hold no weight when their logical implications are explicated in various impact areas. I'll connect the dots in the next round, but now I'm out of character space. Even still, most of what he's said has been ruled out by implication of what I've said in this and the previous round.) Many thanks to PRO for this debate and all judges. I'm out of character space now... lol Another Source: (5) "Flat Taxes and Consumption Taxes: A Guide to the Debate." Martin Sullivan. American Institute of Certified Accountants. (1995) |
14 | 39fc7646-2019-04-18T18:14:10Z-00000-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Morality is determined by the individual I am so sorry, things have gotten so busy in my life I have not had time to prepare an argument this round. Im going to have to leave this debate with the arguments posted so far.again I'm very sorry, I intend to make sure this does not happen again in the future. |
37 | b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00003-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. "The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status." Source: https://www.cancer.gov... |
31 | b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is a disease. 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay "healthy" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics. |
49 | 1733c744-2019-04-18T12:03:59Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals. Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people's lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with. |
21 | 70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Correlation and CausationConsider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[1]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[2]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Excess CO2 traps heat. Considering the recent global warming, satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths,leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[3][4][5]Evidence of Mankind's Influence on the Recent Global Warming TrendIt would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [6]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [7][8]Now, carbon has several isotopes, three of which are C12, C13, and C14. C14 is radioactive, and has a half life of around 5,730 years. The CO2 emissions that humans make come from fossil fuels. Thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C14/C12 ratio to decline, because, while there is a relatively constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere due to continuous replenishment (when a neutron collides with a regular nitrogen atom, a C14 atom and a proton result), the amount of C14 in the Earth has steadily decreased because it is not replenished, and since fossil fuels come from the ground, almost pure C12 is being ejected into the atmosphere. Indeed, it is observed that the C14/C12 ratio has declined. And thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C13/C12 ratio to decline, because plants find it easier to take in carbon dioxide with a C12 atom than one with a C13 atom, implying that plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere and, since animals eat plants (either by directly eating then or eating something that eats plants), also implying that fossils also have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere, implying that we'd see a decline in the C13/C12 ratio as well. Indeed it is also observed that the C13/C12 ratio has declined. [9][10][11]This can be observed in the graph below (this is the C13/C12 ratio over the last 650 years; the C14/C12 ratio graph was too big to put in the debate): The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[4][12][13]This graph shows this: [4]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[4][14]This can be shown in the below graph: [4]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[15]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [16]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [17]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [18]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
28 | f4fc3e13-2019-04-18T18:28:50Z-00007-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Should prostitution be legalized in all states pro make case con make case pro rebuttal con rebuttal Should prostitution be legalized in all states |
36 | a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill For the time that Pro was here he put up a good argument, Pro if you see this please make another account & add me we can debate again about this. But also just because Pro is not here doesn't mean I'm going to just stop debating, I'm a winner I want to win this debate. Through a boxers mentality he or she has to constantly keep in mind & that he can get hit or dropped in a blink of an eye. Boxers fight from 2-3 minutes & must be aware & cautious at ALL times, but in golf you only have to think for about 30 seconds because I'm assuming that's the average time a golfer uses to swing the club. Is the boxer going to uppercut to the gut, or jab 4 times to the face? If a boxer gets hit hard just one time this can take away his confidence because it can make him question "can I keep up with him?" or if you are giving your full force on every punch you throw & you see your punches are not phasing his or her opponent this can make the boxer question his own strength, for example: "Are my punches that hard? Am I throwing them hard enough"? This can make the boxer throw more punches & drain his or her stamina. |
32 | 45c92d70-2019-04-18T18:53:25Z-00000-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity The Holy spirit is not God "(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:39) "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; " (John 14:16) "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26) "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:26) "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (John 16:7) "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: " (Acts 2:17-18) "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10:45) "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15) "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." (1 Corinthians 2:12) "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Galatians 3:2) "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:14) "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Galatians 4:6) "In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," (Ephesians 1:13) "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (1 John 3:24) "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1 John 4:13) "He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit." (1 Thessalonians 4:8) Jesus was created and inferior to God "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32) "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:18) "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17) "He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall never go out of it: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God: and I will also write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12) "But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56) "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15) "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:24-28) "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:" (Revelation 3:14) There is One God "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one" (Mark 12:29) "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'" (Matthew 4:10) "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3) "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5) "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19) "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus and God are not the same person Jesus said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." (John 13:16) Jesus said on numerous occasions that, "the Father… hath sent me." (John 5:37,6:37) The Holy Ghost was also sent by the Father (John 14:26) and Jesus (John 16:7), thus making Jesus inferior to the Father and the Holy Ghost inferior to both the Father and Jesus. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth." (John 14:16) Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3) Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2) Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13) Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1) Jesus worships God. (John 4:22) Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12) Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28) Jesus' head is God. (1 Corinthians 11:1) Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God. (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus is given lordship by God. (Acts 2:36) Jesus is exalted by God.(Acts 5:31) Jesus is made high priest by God. (Hebrews 5:10) Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9) Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33) Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42) "God raised [Jesus] from the dead". (Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15) Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34) Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5) God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was graspable. (Philippians 2:6) "Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" (Matthew 27:46) |
14 | 4b2f7f7a-2019-04-18T14:27:39Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality. Instead of posting argument for this round, I'm going to dive right in with my rebuttals. 1. "When conducting such 'research' I think we could both agree that anyone with an agenda has the ability to put a twist on data and evidence to suit that said agenda." While I don't fully support this assertion, my opponent is right that anyone with clear bias can twist data to suit their beliefs. So, I shall refrain from showing sources that show clear bias and only attempt to source authors whom look at these issues objectively. That being said, my opponent has posted research from the Family Research Council, a group clearly biased against homosexuality. It is also a group that has been formally called a "hate-group" on multiple occasions. So, in that case, yes, their data may be twisted to suit their anti-homosexual agenda. Now I can show endless biased data that supports my assertion, but instead I shall show fully accredited data from several psychological factions. This comes from the compelling brief of The American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellees. (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Under argument IV, part B literally states, "There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted." [1] I've taken the liberty of selecting a few quotes from the brief that I feel support my argument immensely. "Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature." "Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents." "Most research on this topic has focused on lesbian mothers and refutes the stereotype that lesbian parents are not as child oriented or maternal as non-lesbian mothers. Researchers have concluded that heterosexual and lesbian mothers do not differ in their parenting ability" "Turning to the children of gay parents, researchers reviewing the scientific literature conclude that studies provide no evidence that psychological adjustment among lesbians, gay men, their children, or other family members is impaired in any significant way and that every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children's mental health or social adjustment." "Nor does empirical research support the misconception that having a homosexual parent has a deleterious effect on children's gender identity (i.e. one's psychological sense of being male or female) development." I source this data because, unlike the family research council, these four factions show little to no bias against homophobic institutions, and instead come at this argument with objective means to track accredited data of how parenthood differs between heterosexual and homosexual couples. 2. "But I'm more inclined to go by first hand experience, and there are anti gay-marriage activists out there who are campaigning because they came from same sex parents and believe it is not in the best interests of the child." While this does show that some people do feel being raised by homosexuals is not the best choice, your version of first-hand expirance doesn't justify that ALL homosexuals are bad parents. It would be like me saying, "having been raised catholic and knowing it was not best for me, all Catholics parents should cease procreation". 3. "You keep making assertions involving exclusivity, and to prove them wrong only one example against is required." My assertions do not label all homosexuals as good parents, just like your assertions do not label all homosexuals as inferior parents. I use the term "collective group" to state that, in some cases homosexuals are not completely effective parents, however, in most cases, they are just as effective as their counterparts. 4. "Homosexuals should be educated that even though they are gay, they still have choices, that those choices could involve living a heterosexual lifestyle, and that living a heterosexual lifestyle can be very fulfilling, even if they are gay. If society didn't 'accept' homosexual behaviour, then homosexuals can still live well adjusted lives even without it." Your first point assumes that homosexuals don't know they can live as "heterosexuals", which is incorrect. In many cases we do know that it is us who chose to have sex/act on our attraction, just as heterosexuals do. Your second point, however, is far less factual than you assume. While you've given one example of homosexuals living heterosexually, it is not sufficient enough to assert that, "accepting that homosexuality is abnormal gets rid of persecution." Because, it does not. This is a debate worthy case of its own, one of which I'd happily accept a challenge from you, but since our debate has many other points, I'll refrain from fully attacking this assertion and instead continue my other rebuttals. 5. "I already proved it using known facts - Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. It's that simple!" In many cases it is not that simple. What is a known fact is that homosexual sex is not procreation. That is a fact. However, your standards of normal in a sexual sense are quite different form other's standards of normal. So, in a way, it is a subjective opinion. Just like my opinion that homosexuality is normal is only an opinion. 6. I have so many issues with my opponents arguments involving the "sexual abuse of children". Firstly, it makes the assumption that the Kinsey scale of measuring a person's orientation is still considered valid, which it is not. However, if it was, then it would further support my assertion that homosexuality is normal because same-sex attraction is inevitable. Again the bulk of my opponents arguments make statements as fact, despite them being speculative with little accredited evidence supporting their illustrious claims. I could spend this round dissecting the entirety of their lack of validity, but characters permit me not to. 7. "This is not hearsay. Homosexuals statistically have very bad physical and psychological issues." Once again we get into my opponents assertion that anyone with an agenda can twist facts. So, in many ways, this could be considered false. However, instead of dodging this source, I'll address it's validity head on. It has nothing to do with inner-peace and biological differences. While the article does show that homosexuals are often promiscuous, and are more prone to disease, it fails to address similar statistics with heterosexuals. My opponent even admitted as such in an earlier argument stating that, "But I'm sure the world can put up with that since it is not exclusive to homosexuals." So, the disease arguments are moot. And, addressing the arguments of psychological damage, I could assert that the large percentile of homosexuals lack of inner-peace has everything to do with the fact that we are subject to backlash and hate from countless groups of people who deem us inferior to them. So, in this case, many of these statistics would go down with the "normalization" of homosexuality. 8. "Homosexuals can find peace within themselves, and that can include living a homosexual lifestyle But you will not find that peace until you acknowledge the truth, that homosexuality is not normal. The world needs to get to a stage where homosexuals can say "i know this is not right, but it's the way i am, and I'm prepared to live with it". The world needs to get to a stage where parents can say "my child is homosexual. I know it's not right, but they have choices. Whatever way they choose to live their life, I will support them as much as I can and love them as much as I can"…." The entirety of this paragraph is utter speculation that has no evidence priving it's validity. When I say this, I am referring to the arguments stating that we can find peace with ourselves, but only if we accept that we are not normal and that our actions are not right. What my opponent is stating that, we need to accept that people are right for calling us abnormal. People are right to deny us marriage. People are right to discriminate us. In other words, my opponent is lobbying for the acceptance and "normalization" of open bigotry. And, in that case, I very much argue that bigotry is far more abnormal that homosexuality, despite hate being something so commonly occurring. 9. "- If you were to be honest with yourself and with the rest of the world, then perhaps the rest of the world would be more forgiving of homosexuals and you would face less persecution. Stop the delusion or pretense or lie or whatever it is." Yet again, there is nothing to prove this assertion correct. It is speculation that only reasserts the idealism of my opponent. It continues to assume that homosexuality is wrong and that we are inferior. And, there is no way someone could say that, because there is no evidence to prove such a claim. In fact, one could argue that if we concede all points of us being inferior, we would suffer more discrimination than before. With my rebuttals complete, I turn the debate over to my opponent. See you in the final round! Citation: 1. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov... |
36 | 18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00003-000 | Is golf a sport? | THW ban boxing Thank you.Worthy opponent, we are going to have a slight change in the strategy. In this round, please rebut my arguments mentioned in the second round. In the fourth round, please have defense and conclusions. Thank you again.I don't know why my arguments in the second round are written as a whole argument in one line. Please copy it, paste it in MS Word, and then read it.Some of my rebuttals will be very short, but if I explained every one, we could make an essay out of it. I'll do that as I have more than 3 debates going on, all with arguments due. I ask my opponent to forgive me for that. I also ask voters, if my opponent does not mind that, to do the same.My strategy in rebuttal: ("Argument" -Rebuttal)Rebuttal:1. "First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment." -CON.-Legalize duels then!2. "In this source, the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports." -CON.- NONE of them are violent. I will be expanding this point later on in my rebuttal.3. " Also, in this source, it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, "Boxing should be on the top..." And in golf, it says, "This is really a sport, but..." Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. "-CON.- Two things. Firstly, I agree boxing is entertaining. Very entertaining. But at the same time, very dangerous, too. You will be at fault if you ban any sport just because it is not entertaining. Ban boxing because it's DANGEROUS.4. "What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing."-CON.- What if fans suddenly began loving duels, armed duels, leave them? Just because if you ban duels they'll become violent? So you musn't see what the public wants in everything. Public wants to legalize terrorism, suicide, etc. leave them? So democracy is in matters you can actually change or keep as it is, without danger. Not in dangerous SPORTS like boxing.5. "My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, "Even a bad law is a law." The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of "safety". That is ridiculous. "-CON.- I don't know why my opponent is just debating about whether boxing is good or not. His arguments are full of red herrings[1]. WORTHY OPPONENT, THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BOXING IS GOOD OR NOT. FAMOUS OR NOT. ENTERTAINING OR NOT. If a sort is good, famous, and entertaining, and at the same time DANGEROUS, BAN IT! Boxing is EXACTLY like duels in this debate. As for the liberty thing, then legalize suicide. Legalize duels. LIBERTY!6. "And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. "-CON.- Legalize suicide.7. "This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source . My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. " -CON.- 1. Ban walking in the street and eating sugar. 2. Violent doesn't mean everything that hurts or kills. Violent means sports that actually goal to killing or hurting. A boxer's goal is to knock out his opponent. Violent. Whatever happens including injuries or deaths in other sports isn't intended. In boxing, it is.8. " a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports."-CON.- I've already showed that other sports like volleyball and basketball aren't violenrt as injuries and deaths aren't intended. On the other hand, injuring is intended in boxing. By this, I've already cancelled the two choices, as only boxing from these sports is violent.In conclusion, I've rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. NO DEFENCE IN THIS ROUND PLEASE.I know my language is very bad in this debate. I'm not getting right words. Sorry. Please don't mind that, as I have many debates.Adil,Qatar.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... |
40 | a490d6c8-2019-04-18T18:32:23Z-00004-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty The death penalty is unjust, and costly. Only sentences of life without parole should be the maximum punishment for any capital offense. |
1 | 42f1857a-2019-04-18T12:55:34Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Student performance should be a factor when determining K-12 teacher salary If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement" and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success. Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational. Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques"plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities just like the rest of the workforce. In the end, it is inherently ignorant and flawed that perfor |
39 | 5c3ed51-2019-04-18T19:04:39Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Minimum Wage It seems my opponent has forfieted the last round. I was looking forward to a good debate, and hope for one in the future. |
14 | 88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00005-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual Orientation is a choice I am against the notion that a person's sexual orientation is a choice. I would like to debate this topic with an opponent and see what has to be said by an opposing view. The debate will go as follows Round 1: Opening statement Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing statement |
40 | e03e76bf-2019-04-18T15:43:08Z-00002-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should be Abolished! Thanks, 9space. Aplogies in advance for any S&G/formatting errors; I had only my phone to write this and did not have time to revise. Since my case overlaps quite a bit with Pro's case, I will be using this round for both rebuttals and counter-rebuttals to avoid redundancy. A1: Justice Pro agrees that the people who commit the most serious crimes deserve the most serious punishments; what we disagree on is what that 'most serious punishment' is. I argued that death is the most serious because it strips a person of the source of their existence-- without life, one cannot experience pleasure, pain, or anything, really. There is no more chance for happiness, no more chance for fulfillment, no more chance for a future; for that, it is the ultimate punishment. There is a reason why the fear of death is and has always been universal across the human race [1]. Pro's alternative, while harsh, simply does not have the same effect as the death penalty does. A person can still find happiness and fulfillment in some form even in jail, especially with the ever-rising standard of living in prisons [2]. If death was really preferable to life in prison, then logically, the vast majority of criminals sentenced to LWOP would commit suicide, yet no where do we see this trend. A2: Costs First of all, cost shouldn't play a role in this debate at all. Justice is about what a person deserves for their crimes; we can't decide what punishment to use by seeing which one is the most cost-effective-- we can only decide based on what they actually deserve, and as I showed in A1, that would be the death penalty. Furthermore, keeping the death penalty legal has its own economic benefits, coming in the form of plea bargaining. We can use the threat of the death penalty to obtain a guilty plea from the criminal early on (in exchange for taking the death penalty off the list of potential sentences), thus completely dodging the costs of the trial process and balancing out the costs of the DP appeals process to the point that there is no substantial difference between the costs of the DP and the costs of LWOP [3]. A3: Innocents Pro argues that the irreversible nature of the death penalty renders the execution of innocents to be a grave injustice. Firstly, such occurrences are now virtually non-existent because modern developments in forensic science such as the advent of DNA testing have allowed for the guilty to be identified as such with greater accuracy than ever before [4]. In fact, Pro's statistics simply support my point by showing that we are capable of distinguishing the innocent from the guilty before it is too late. Pro's claim that innocent executions probably still occur without our noticing is complete speculation; he must provide definitive evidence of such a thing happening relatively recently (e.g. postmortem exonerations). The huge amount of focus given to ensuring the guilt of death row prisoners actually underscores a weakness of imprisonment: without the pressure of imminent death, there is not nearly as much effort put into the the post-conviction exoneration of LWOP subjects, and combined with the overall lower standard of required evidence necessary to imprison someone, there is significantly higher likelihood of there being innocent people spending their lives in prison than there is of an innocent person being executed under the modern justice system. A4: Discrimination Pro's argument, here, is non-unique; it applies to ALL forms of justice because racial discrimination is not just a problem with the death penalty-- it is an underlying problem of society which needs to be fixed independently. Once the actual problem of racial discrimination is solved, the trends that Pro has pointed out will cease to exist. Until then, we will see such trends of racism in all forms of punishment, including normal imprisonment [5]. A5: Death This argument is absurd. One of the death penalty's plus points is that it gets rid of people who the rest of humanity would be better off without. If someone deserves to die, then they should die; the observation that lots of people die is wholly irrelevant. What does Pro even mean by "too many"? He has presented no objective standard by which we can evaluate how much death is too much. A6: Cheap Labor Again, I must assert that justice must take precedence; if someone deserves death, then they should die, regardless of how much material gain we could reap otherwise. But besides that, this form of punishment is entirely unfeasible for the state to administer. It is one thing to seize someone's rights as a matter of justice (i.e. death penalty or imprisonment), but it is something else to take advantage of those people who have had their rights seized to have them do forced labor, reducing them to the status of slaves and stripping them of all dignity. The state simply doesn't have the right to do such a thing; it can only do to its citizens that which justice requires, and extracting cheap labor from them does not fall under that category. A7: Religion Pro's argument is based in a violation of one of America's central political principles: the separation of the church and state. If we were to buy religious arguments for governmental policies, our law books would be completely riddled with contradictions from trying to incorporate the doctrines of all major religious and non-religious groups. We are clearly better off rejecting any such arguments, including this one. Pro ends off by claiming that the majority of people are openly against the death penalty, yet he provides no support for this. In reality, support for the death penalty has always been rather high in the United States [6]. A8: Deterrence Pro's response is entirely insufficient; I acknowledged that in general, the deterrent effect of the death penalty is minimal, but still existent due to the existence of several specific instances in which the death penalty obviously has deterred crime. As I stated before, the statistical correlations cited by Pro regarding deterrence rates are relatively meaningless because of all the other, more important factors that play into crime rates. A9: Recidivism Pro gives virtually no response to this argument. He claims that LWOP offers equal recidivism prevention, a notion which is refuted by my pre-empt regarding in-prison homicide, and then addresses my pre-empt by claiming that prisoner deaths are a good thing. But this contradicts the stance Pro took up in A1-- that death is an "easy way out" for convicts and cheats society of proper justice being served. Pro cannot continue along this line of argumentation without conceding A1 (and by extension, the entire debate). ____________________________________________________ All of Pro's arguments have been refuted. The resolution is negated. [1] http://phobias.about.com... [2] https://www.aclu.org... [3] http://www.sfu.ca... [4] http://america.aljazeera.com... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] http://www.gallup.com... |
26 | fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00001-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education Hello! my name is Thomas brooks and I stand in affirmation of the resolved, On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K"12 education in the United States. We have three contentions to bring to you today. 1" standardized testing compares schools, 2" Standardised testing improves k"12 education, 3" On balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Point one) Without standardized testing, their would be no way to compare schools, and assure that they were meeting their constitutional standards. The fourteenth constitutional amendment requires fair and equal treatment to all, under protection of the law. The Supreme Court Case Brown vs. Board of education in 1954, Officially legislated that the 14th amendment applied to all education laws. Therefore, It is our constitutional right to receive an equal education. If there is no way to compare schools, there is no way for individuals to know whether a student is receiving a substandard education, vandalising our constitutional right. Without standardized testing there would be no form of comparison and equality would not be obtainable. This leads us into our second point. Standardized testing has made tangible the quality of education a school provides, and created accountability in not just teachers and schools, but in districts and states . This has benefited educational mandates in funding in two irreplaceable ways. 1) The implementation of NCLB has enabled schools to sue states for failing to provide standard and adequate teaching facilities. Study conducted by David G. Sciarra, shows direct correlation to how the instatement of No Child Left Behind created accountability to state and government to provide a standard of school safety conditions. The study focuses on, but is not limited to a number of lawsuits in states New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and California where severely underfunded schools that lacked resources, and dew to the passing of the NCLB had the legal grounds to obtaining equil funding and such from the state improving the education of their students. 2) The second way standardized tests have improved education is in actually reforming state legislature dictating funding. Since the 1970"s, when statewide standardized tests became more common, there was an increase of court cases discussing that different funding was required to support different schools. These arguments are called "adequacy" suits. The arguments are based in the belief that a school that supports a larger population of students, or educates students that live in poorer demographics need more state funding, and can not rely on property tax. Plaintiffs fundamentally rely upon low scores on standardized tests, and high dropout rates as proof that the state has failed to provide an adequate education for substantial numbers of its children. Standardized tests have created greater equality in school funding. Our Third contention is that on balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Test anxiety is real, and it is true that both high and low stakes standardized tests can create stress in K"12 students. However, post primary education is also depended on high stakes assessments, similar to those of standardized tests. Students who participate in standardized tests will be more prepared to face future educational, occupational, and professional goals. Such tests include those pertaining to college admission and success, occupational licensing for trades such as law and medicine. Standardised tests are the only way to insure that individuals have the capability to obtain and equal education, key in creating safe campuses, and fundamental in legislature allocating school funding. Furthermore, Standardized tests prepare students for the stress in taking high stakes tests later in their life. On balance, standardized tests are imperative to improving k"12 education, and benefit it in many ways. |
8 | 758638fb-2019-04-18T19:02:15Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be illegal. I negate the resolution to show that abortion should continue to be legal. Building my own case: 1. Making abortions illegal doesn't mean they will stop Before abortion was made legal, illegal abortions were widespread. According to Associated Content, in 1932, 15,000 women died each year due to illegally and improperly performed abortions. [1] Making abortion legal, for the most part, removed the need to perform illegal, dangerous abortions in backwater clinics under unsafe conditions. However, a study by Planned Parenthood in 2010 of immigrant women found that due to poverty, women would try to induce an abortion by taking a beverage of alcohol and aspirin, throwing themselves down stairs and having someone punch them in the stomach. [2] Women also attempt to inject dangerous chemicals into their uterus or employ a coat hangar or other sharp object to remove the fetus. You must realize that just because you believe that "personhood" starts at the moment when the sperm breaches the ovum doesn't mean that other people do. And the people who do not believe so have empirically shown that they are willing to seek abortions, whether or not they are legal. At least when abortions are legal, they are subject to reasonable medical standards, and women don't need to die seeking unsafe back-alley abortions. 2. Alternatives The alternative to banning abortions is to promote safe sex using proper sex education. All the empirical evidence points to the fact that children will not stop having sex just because we tell them to do so. The Guttmacher Institute reports in 2006 that 13% of teens aged 15 and under admit to engaging in sexual intercourse, while 70% of 19 year olds admit to having had sex. [3] The problem is with abstinence only sex education programs, such as the one that Bristol Palin attended, which don't teach teens safe alternative to abstinence, such as condom usage. The Sexuality Information and Education Council reports that Congress has funneled $1.5 billion to abstinence only programs in recent years. [4] However, a British Medical Journal meta-analysis of 13 studies done to date found that all the studies point to the following result: that abstinence only education (compared to students not receiving ANY sex education) does not decrease the rate of vaginal sex or the number of sexual partners; does not increase condom use, and (unsurprisingly based on the former) does not decrease pregnancy or STD transmission rates. [5] If we taught children how to have safe sex, we could decrease the number of abortions performed. This is the most practical policy method for anti-abortion advocates to pursue, if they want the number of abortions to decrease. 3. Motives for abortion Despite some characterizations, women who get abortions are usually women who have already had a child, use birth control but had it fail, and cannot afford another child. The Center for Disease Control reports that 60% of women who get abortions have already had one child. [6] According to studies by the Guttmacher Institute. "a majority of women who report their reasons for seeking abortion say they can't afford a child or are unready to raise one. Women living below the federal poverty level are more than four times more likely to terminate a pregnancy than women earning above 300 percent of the poverty level. Latina women and Black women terminate pregnancies at two and three times the rate of white women." [7] Acclaimed economist Steven Levitt notes that when we legalized abortion, the crime rate started declining rapidly approximately 15-20 years later. His explanation is that unwanted children, whose mothers could not afford to raise them without sinking further into poverty, were instead aborted. These children would have been most at-risk for committing crimes or joining gangs. [8] It is a bad idea to flood society either with unwanted children or children that families cannot afford to raise. 4. Exceptional cases There is one case where no one can argue that abortion should not be legal: in situations where carrying the child to term will undoubtedly result in the death of the mother (and thus also the fetus). One such case is an ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus is growing somewhere outside the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. This pregnancy could not be carried to term – both the mother and fetus would die long before the fetus could survive on its own. Women on the Web reports that abortions to end ectopic pregnancies are allowed, even in places where abortion is severely restricted. [9] Responding to my opponent's case: 1. Abortion is murder If this is the case, women's bodies routinely murder their offspring. A woman's body knows to dispel a fetus if it has any serious mutations that would prevent it from becoming a functional human being. This is why babies are never born without major organs, since the woman miscarries long before the fetus is carried to term. Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature. In addition, murder is defined as killing another person, not killing a living thing. All people agree that the fetus is living. Whether it is a "person" yet is up for debate. Webster's Dictionary defines a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." [10] A fetus is essentially on life support from its mother and cannot survive on its own. Most moderate pro-choice advocates like myself are willing to concede that late term abortions should not occur, since at that point the fetus has fully developed lungs and heart, so it can survive on its own. But before the third trimester, the fetus cannot survive without the umbilical cord. In addition, Brian Elroy points out that the other distinctive feature of a "person" is what we know as "consciousness." [11] In many ways, killing an animal for meat is more inhumane than ending the contingent life of a fetus because the fetus cannot feel pain at that point in its development but the animal can. So an abortion ends a life, but does not kill a person (a distinct, conscious being). An abortion ends the life of a potential person, much as a women's body would in nature during a miscarriage. Consider the following thought experiment based on the one created by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. [12] In the middle of the night, a stranger drugs you and then attaches you to a dying person via a cord of some kind, through which flows many of your vital life giving juices. You are then told that the cord is necessary to keep the person alive and that if you sever the cord, the person will die. If you choose not to live the rest of your life attached by a short cord to this person and decide to sever the cord, can you really be said to have committed murder? 2. Adoption Not all babies get adopted. Remember from above that African American women terminate pregnancies at three times the rate of white women. And African American babies are the least likely to get adopted. The New York Times cites a study that Black, male babies are considered by prospective parents as the least adoptable. [13] NPR reports that 50% of children waiting to be placed within the foster children are African American. [14] I don't know how pro-lifers feel about this, but NPR continues that many African American babies are placed with gay couples because gay couples often times get last priority from adoption agencies. Living as an unwanted child in the foster care system is a terrible experience. HG Legal Directories reports that ""As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse." [15] Banning abortions would likely inundate the foster care/adoption system with more children that they are capable of handling. Many of these children will be racial minorities that are the most difficult to place in loving homes. |
46 | 5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00004-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net Neutrality Thanks Tyler, here we go.Main Contention- Resource PrioritizationNet Neutrality advocates proffers a case that of non-discriminatory. This is a major flaw when it comes to resource prioritization. Large companies such as netflix requires huge amounts of data, while users such as ourselves require very little. The complexity of technology leads to a path of optimisation. Resource optimisation is key in technological advancements. Thus, Each user should be optimised to its own needs.RebuttalsTyler, the success of newer start-ups, again is correlating with resource prioritisations. Newer starters rarely need any additional incentives, they usually arrive with whatever they need. Furthermore, the resources that they need are nothing compare to the power core companies. This is just a matter of prioritising and optimising everyone to suit everyone needs. Nothing more, Nothing less.As far as I'm concerned, there is no violation of the first amendment. The right to free speech is still upheld, unless Tyler wishes to go to specifics. Thanks Tyler, I hand it back to you. |
23 | 7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00000-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Well okay, debating now is going to be difficult because you sort of convinced me, so... I mean I tried to write a rebuttal but I mean, that's difficult now. |
28 | 821c3053-2019-04-18T18:09:42Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legal in the United States Many thanks to my opponent for all of his compliments, and for posting his round in a timely manner. I apologize for being busy (not really... because I've been having a lot of fun!) this holiday weekend and posting my round so late. If it's any consolation to my opponent, I have just a little bit of time to respond to his rebuttal. I will bullet point Con's main contentions numerically, and respond underneath. 1. We don't have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies (i.e., roam the streets naked, smoke pot, etc.). While it's true that we don't have the right (or rather, legal authority) to smoke pot, it is up for debate whether or not we should have that right. Likewise whether or not women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy is up for debate. And similarly, whether or not we have the right to do whatever we want with our own body in general (including prostitution) is a principle that many believe we do have the natural right to do, even if we are legally prohibited from doing so. In this debate, I contend that we do in fact have (and should have the legal recognition) the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, so long as it does not physically inhibit or impose upon the rights of another - usually their physical person. Therefore Con cannot simply point out the obvious fact that we don't have the legal right to do whatever we want with our own bodies. Instead, he must explain why we should maintain the status quo; why we shouldn't have the legal right to do whatever we please with our own bodies, so long as it does not infringe upon another non-consenting individual. In other words, he must explain why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to make the agreement to have sex with one another in exchange for money or material goods. Of course, this will be extremely hard for him considering adults choose to have sex with one another every single day all over the world, and have since the dawn of man. In fact, sex in exchange for material goods or resources is frequently how society describes or utilizes their relationships. 2. Society will have to foot the bill (medical expenses) if STD rates rise, which is inevitable. First, in the last round I pointed out that legal prostitutes are regularly tested for STDs, and as such are overwhelmingly clean in comparison to their illegal counterparts. As such, legalizing prostitution would actually help rather than hurt the goal of decreasing the spread of STDs. Second, brothels could easily require clients to also be STD-free, just as patrons who want to buy certain products must meet particular criteria (eg. you must be 21 to purchase alcohol). Third, the government could legislate against not covering the cost of STDs, the same way politicians have petitioned the government not to have to cover the cost of abortions in many states. 3. Legalizing prostitution would create bureaucratic measures in itself. This contention is at best irrelevant and at worst self-defeating. First of all, by acknowledging how many prostitutes there are, Con has conceded to how much the criminalization of prostitution has failed both as a deterrent and how much of a problem it has been in terms of financing - including lost tax revenue, and the cost of maintaining the criminal justice system. Second of all, swapping bureaucratic jobs is not equivalent here. By keeping prostitution illegal, you are forcing all of these employees into having criminal records which basically secures prostitution as the only job they can ever have thereafter. You are also putting these people in jail (more about that later) for performing a consensual act, which is arguably immoral. Third, the government doesn't have to fund the regulation. Oversight can be provided by private business, similar to how insurance companies provide a service in response to a government mandate. This will create jobs - jobs the government doesn't have to fund. 4. Children might be brainwashed into becoming prostitutes, rather than something honorable or useful. Considering the high demand for sex workers, prostitution it is certainly a "useful" job insofar as it provides supply for people's demands. Further, what authority does Con have to declare this profession as dishonorable? He dropped every contention of mine noting that some people really enjoy sex, and that every culture's view of sex and promiscuity/polygamy is different. Further, keep in mind that people can practice sex safely. Just because he might want to limit himself to one people or five people doesn't mean his approach to sexuality is any more "honorable" than someone who chooses to sleep with a lot of people. Con cannot self-righteously impose his subjective morals onto society. 5. Not all prostitutes will go through the process of being certified, or rather subjecting themselves to regulation. This contention can be applied to every single profession in the world. Not everyone is honest. For example: tax evasion. Some employers don't pay their employees "on the books." Some doctors aren't properly certified. Some contractors don't acknowledge building codes. Some people lose or don't renew their licenses, and continue to practice anyway. Some stores falsely report theft or commit insurance fraud. In short, of course some sex workers might not abide by all of the rules. That's completely irrelevant, as it applies to every profession. All you can do is attempt to put the best safeguards possible in place, just like with every other job. 6. Legalizing prostitution will increase promiscuity. I've already pointed out in the last round why this is irrelevant. People are already having casual sex, and being paid for it wouldn't affect the morality of the act itself. Additionally, people should choose for themselves whether or not having promiscuous sex is right for them. It is not the role of government to legislate personal morality. Moreover, criminalizing sex workers hurts them and their families. In addition to making them feel guilty about their profession (when there is nothing inherently wrong with sex), it makes them criminals. This takes sex workers away from their families, friends and children. Having parents in jail increases the likelihood that inmates' kids will go to jail. It is also dishonorable to punish consenting adults and by extension their children for choosing to have sex. It is also an incredibly expensive burden on those arrested to pay for attorneys fees, fines and other costs. [ Conclusion ] I've more than adequately negated all of my opponent's contentions. While I understand (and appreciate) Con's concession of many of my points for the sake of brevity, he cannot undermine the significance of my arguments. The audience must keep in mind how much legalization can benefit both individuals and society as a whole, as well as how much criminalization has many harmful effects on both as well. And without further adieu, just as I have to submit my round... |
38 | 66a9952e-2019-04-18T14:51:33Z-00004-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Abortion should be an option For my first argument i would like to focus on what appeared to be your main support for why abortion should be an option, which was that babies can be a huge burden on the life of women. This is a statement in which i can agree with 100% but after saying this i would like to say that having a child does not have to be a burden(except for the 9 months of pregnancy) due to the fact that their are many options as to where the child can go once being born. One of these places can be with a family. I completely understand that sometimes family members may be the ones pushing for an abortion or not accepting of a child but even then there are other options. The next option would be to put your pre-born child up for adoption. This method would allow you to choose parents that you deem to be right. Lastly i would like to say that if putting a child up for is too hard to go through, with then you can drop a child off at Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses as part of the safe haven protection laws. In conclusion i would to say that if a person wishes to abort a baby they should first attempt to go through one of the processes above. If the instigator wishes to ask me to counter one of her other arguments or explain my argument further i would be happy to do so. Definition: Safe-haven law- Laws that allow an unharmed infant to be relinquished to the proper authorities( Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses), no questions asked. |
21 | 7011cf2f-2019-04-18T16:47:48Z-00002-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Human caused global warming is 'overhyped' Hello Muslimnomore! "I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really." Great! This we can agree on. "1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years)." They used to say this during the "global warming" days, but since the model has shifted to "climate change" most scientists agree that co2 actually does the opposite. It heats up our planet in certain areas, but this causes polar caps and icebergs to melt, sending cold waters towards the equator and causing certain areas to actually cool rather than warm. It was 73 F in New York on Dec. 24th, 2013. Then again: http://www.usatoday.com... It is 52 here in Va, highly unusual. And very miserable, might I add. "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years." Some of the dangers we face are extreme climates, heightened sea levels (flooding), and much greater ocean acidity (already up about 30% since the industrial revolution). http://climate.nasa.gov... So no, it won't accelerate our ice age, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. "2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years)." "Rising sea level is a threat to people who live near the ocean. Some low-lying areas will have more frequent flooding, and very low-lying land could be submerged completely. Rising sea level can also harm important coastal ecosystems like mangrove forests and coral reefs." -- http://epa.gov... "climate change is expected to substantially increase these already high relative rates by increasing the global rate of sea-level rise. Although the response of ice sheets to warmer temperatures can not be predicted, there is a consensus that sea level rise will accelerate as ocean waters expand and glaciers retreat." -- http://www.epa.gov... "3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe." "The latest science connecting hurricanes and global warming suggests more is yet to come. Tropical storms are likely to bring: higher wind speeds; more precipitation; and bigger storm surge in the coming decades. Over the course of this century, maximum wind speeds could increase 2-11 percent and rainfall could increase 3-31 percent." -- http://www.nwf.org... Also, "Warming-driven sea level rise makes storm surges more destructive; increased water vapor in the atmosphere leads to 5 to 10% more rainfall and increases the risk of flooding; because water vapor and higher ocean temperatures help fuel the storm, it is likely to be more intense and bigger as well; and the unusual path of the storm...caused by a very strong blocking high pressure system that recent studies have linked to warming. " -- http://thinkprogress.org... I hope I have answered all of your questions regarding climate change! |
24 | 36b21ac8-2019-04-18T19:59:14Z-00004-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | income tax is not unconstitutional Hello dairygirl, I would like to start by saying that I do not disagree with your statement "income tax is not unconstitutional." This will of course make you wonder why on earth I took this debate. However, while AN income tax may be constitutional, the income tax that is understood and implemented today is far from constitutional. So while I agree that the 16th amendment allows for an income tax, I am arguing that today's "income tax" as we know it goes far beyond the authority afforded by the 16th amendment. In other words, I assume you are wondering why people call today's income tax unconstitutional, when it seems to be clearly spelled out IN the constitution. By very nature, our income tax system violates the 5th amendment of the constitution. The fifth amendment states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "pleading the 5th" and what that basically means is that you are exercising your constitutional right to choose not to disclose evidence or testimony that may incriminate you. If you look at the federal income tax return, it is a direct violation of this amendment in that it requires you to "voluntarily" disclose a whole lot of information about yourself that can later be used to incriminate you. If you refuse to sign the document "under pains and penalties or perjury" your return will be rejected, but if you do sign it you are forfeiting your Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate yourself (in most cases unknowingly). It is obviously unconstitutional for them to FORCE you to give up one of your constitutional rights, and if the income tax system is not voluntary, then that's what they are doing. |
50 | e299b68f-2019-04-18T19:18:03Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Discussion Francaise: Paris est une meilleure ville que Londres Je remercie Volkov de son argument 1) L'Histoire de Londres\ Paris: "Par exemple, le Palais de Westminster est une belle s�rie de b�timents qui remontent au dix-neuvi�me si�cle et au-del�[1]. La seule maison survivant de Benjamin Franklin, une grande figure historique de legend am�ricaine, est aussi localis�e � Londres [2]; de m�me que La Cath�drale de Saint-Paul [3]; le Ch�teau de Windsor [4]; la Tower Bridge [5] et l'Arc de Wellington [6]." --> C'est vrai mais il y a beacoup autre l'histoire dans Paris. Il y a la premi�re statue de la libert� (http://en.wikipedia.org...). L'endroits historiques dans Paris est plus populaire que l'endroits dans Londres. Le Teur d'eiffel (6,719,200 touristes http://www.eiffel-tower.com...), Les louvres (8.3 million http://www.usatoday.com...) , est plus populaire de l'arc de Wellington, la Tower Bridge, La Cath�drale de Saint-Paul. En outre, Paris est la ville la plus visit�e au monde (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...; http://www.articlecat.com...) 2) L'Economie de Londres\ Paris: "C'est vrai que Paris est une tr�s grande �conomie, mais Londres est su aussi comme un des plus grand march� �changeant des centres dans le monde. Seulement, la Bourse de Londres a un taux de roulement total de 1,4trillion dollars (US) [7]. L'Euronext, un bourse europ�enne a bas� en Paris, pendant que plus grand dans la valeur market, ne fait pas le roulement d'argent comme l'Echange de Londres" --> Mais, Paris est un grand centre �conomique (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Sur cette liste , Paris est cinqui�me , est Londres est sixi�me . "Beaucoup d'entreprises respect�es sont aussi localis�es � Londres, par exemple; la compagnie d'assurances l'�norme Royal Sun & Alliance [9]; d'entreprise pharmaceutique GlaxoSmithKline [10]; le banque HSBC [11]; et la troisi�me plus grand compagnie d'�nergie du monde, BP [12]. Paris, pendant qu'un centre �conomique majeur, ne pas a autant d'entreprises puissantes localis�es en Londres. Londres est en fait en advance de Paris dans les questions �conomiques." --> Il y a vingt-cinq "Fortune 500" compagnies � Paris, mais seulement vingt-deux � Londres. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Paris est un centre �conomique plus important que Londres 3) L'Attractions de Londres\ Paris: "Mais, Londres inclut un attractions meilleurs; " "l'Maison de Cire de Madame Tussauds" --> Il y a un maison de cire dans Paris (http://www.parisdigest.com...). "l'Oeil de Londres " --> Il y a L'arc e triomphe est le teur eiffel dans Paris. Ils donnent deux avis ahurissants de la ville "le Plaza de Trafalgar" --> Il y a place de la concorde (http://en.wikipedia.org...), est le place de Bastille (http://en.wikipedia.org...) dans PAris. "la Mus�e Britannique" --> Il y a le louvre dans Paris, ce qui est bien mieux "beaucoup de clubs de nuit o� beaucoup de c�l�brit�s ont �t� vues " --> Il y a clubs de nuit dans Paris, mais Paris est plus cultiv�, pour cette raison il y a des th��tres d'op�ra (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Les attractions de Paris sont meilleures que ceux de Londres Je pousse fortement une voix pour CON |
31 | 2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00005-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity In America should we do something Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it |
9 | 28f316b1-2019-04-18T18:27:06Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Students should not have to wear uniforms. My opponent has conceited her final argument and not defended my attacks on her contentions, therefore I urge a Con vote. |
1 | 1a76ed9f-2019-04-18T16:07:27Z-00005-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | High schools should add students to the teacher evaluation system. Arguments: The Flaws With the Current SystemTest Scores: The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (NFT) (1) notes that many schools focus a little too much on tests scores for teacher evaluation in order to get grants from No Child Left Behind. So the school's real reasoning behind giving test scores too much worth when it comes to teacher evaluation is not actually the accuracy of such an evaluation, but the opportunity to obtain grants. Principle Reviews: This one is very obvious. Teachers can easily change up their regular way of teaching the moment a principle walks in. I see this all the time with teachers that I have had.Of course, both these factors should not go away but it is clear that something is missing. NFT explains, "To measure teacher and principal quality and effectiveness, use multiple measures based on school and classroom evidence." Accuracy of Student EvaluationsStudent evaluations are just what high schools need to correctly asses teachers' abilities. The Atlantic cites a study performed on various teacher evaluations filled out by students. (2) These evaluations were proved to be much more accurate than any known way of assessing a instructor's abilities. This study was able to show that teachers with high ratings were able to fit in six more months of learning than teachers with the lowest ratings. This shows that students don't always give teachers high ratings because they like the easiness of the class. Improves the School SystemTeacher's Union Exposed notes that today, bad teachers are actually protected (3). Only 1 in 1,000 bad teachers are fired. This is because once teachers gain tenure, they basically cannot be fired. It takes about 3 years of mostly positive evaluations to achieve tenure in most cases. As I have proved above, the current evaluation system can protect bad teachers because test scores and administrator assessments alone cannot accurately measure a teacher's worth. By adding the accuracy student evaluations, the chance of bad teachers getting tenure become much lower. Student's First Organization (SFO) strongly believes that student evaluations are the key to putting students first which should be the ultimate goal in every school system. I'll get more into that later. Benefits the Student and TeacherStudents: Obviously, if the student is put first, the students will be satisfied. Nubia Baptestie enjoyed this system being integrated into this school system (2). "A classmate standing next to her shook her head. They should've done this since I was in the eighth grade." Ben Johnson, a teacher and administrator himself, conducted a study showing that there is an overwhelming gap between what students expect from their teachers and what they actually get. The average gap is 35% (4). No one can assess a teacher's abilities better than a student because they are being taught by the teacher daily. If students feel like teachers cannot meet their expectations, student evaluations of teachers will give them a way to make their voice heard. (not just to the administration but to the teacher)Teachers: With this point, I'm mainly talking about the teachers who strive to learn how to teach better. Above, I showed the large gap between students expectations of a teacher vs. what students receive. When students note what teachers do right/wrong, teachers can know how to improve their methods of teaching. ConclusionElaborating on Student's First Organization card: According to SFO, "If our evaluation systems put students first, this dissonance would be impossible. Good evaluations are honest and transparent, are calculated in an understandable manner, accurately asses overall performance, and identify opportunities for teachers to improve." Essentially, this can only be done with student evaluations. Benefitting the school by picking out the good teachers and making sure the school's priorities are right, benefitting the students by helping them feel like they have a say, and benefiting the teachers by letting them know how to improve is why these evaluations should be integrated into high schools (5). (1) http://www.fairtest.org...(2) http://www.theatlantic.com...(3) http://teachersunionexposed.com...(4) http://www.edutopia.org...(5) http://www.studentsfirst.org... Thank you to unknown_player for accepting. Good luck; i'm looking forward to a great debate!! |
22 | 89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)! |
40 | 8e5edc9-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00000-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The death penalty should be abolished Hello once again, my name is Forever 23 and I am here in order to bring forth my premise which is that we must abolish the death penalty. As the third opposition, it is crucial for me to repudiate the pros points. Their first assertion was that many people are executed even though they didn't do the crime. That may be true, but there is no way a system can be 100% perfect. There will always be mistakes but at the end, we will surly catch the criminal. According to Prosecuting Attorney for Clark County Indiana Message on the Clark County Prosecutor "...No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976... The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal..." And therefore, the mistakes should not force us to completely abolish death penalty. Maybe we should just make our investigation systems stronger. Their second assertion was that executions come at great costs. However, the statistic proposed my the proposition, not only had no source, it was also very inaccurate. The Director of Death Penalty Resources at Justice for All stated, "Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA [Justice for All] estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million-$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP." And therefore, the prices of keeping criminals in jail are larger than those of execution. The propositions third and final assertion was that poor quality defense leaves many sentences to death. However, the attorneys do all that they can in order to save the criminal from death sentence. The attorneys hired are usually very professional and adequate. According to California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) , "Defense attorneys... routinely file all manner of motions and objections to protect their clients from conviction. Attorneys know their trial tactics will be thoroughly scrutinized on appeal, so every effort is made to avoid error, ensuring yet another level of protection for the defendant. They [death penalty opponents]... have painted a picture of incompetent defense lawyers, sleeping throughout the trial, or innocent men being executed. Their accusations receive wide media coverage, resulting in a near-daily onslaught on the death penalty. Yet, through all the hysteria, jurors continue to perform their responsibilities and return death sentences." Therefore, those put on death sentence really do deserve it and the reason they die should not be blamed on lawyers. Thank you, please vote for the opposition. |
48 | abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00003-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | voting age should be lowered I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting? |
35 | 92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00007-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Children See Violent Video Games Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games. Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance.[1] [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110 |
Subsets and Splits