query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
30 | d66b8937-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00011-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.5 It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can't pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street. |
40 | 5efff4d3-2019-04-18T13:32:58Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty "Is it really just bare assertions? IS that not how philosophy woks?" A. You made a claim the death penalty works to deter crime using a quote, but didn't cite a source so we could review the study, therefore we can disregard that, since you did not give us a chance to check its validity. "If just a jail time deters people, what more would death penalty?" A. I have no clue what you really mean there, but you were making a point that having the death penalty increases the rate at which violent criminals are found and arrested which is completely asinine itself and then gave no evidence for this. Well your source is 46 pages long, I won't bother. However, I think my evidence that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is enough. "...affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals. I do not agree with the rational choice theory because if it was true, then the evidence would show that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates. "Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd like to refute your second part." A. I did give you evidence, I gave you a graph (or a link to it) that shows states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, so clearly it has not been very effective as a deterrent, but I could give you more. The opinions of top criminologists: A study conducted by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock surveyed some top criminologists in the country, criminologists who won the Sutherland award at the American Society of Criminology, and and presidents of the society since 1997. The study found that when asked if they believe the death penalty is a deterrent, 88% of them said no, while only 5% said yes, with 7% being indifferent. What we can conclude from this is some of the best criminologists in the country actually believe the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. But it gets worse, when asked if they thought there was good empirical evidence to support it is a deterrent... 94% said no, so even many criminologists who believe the death penalty works as a deterrent agree there is not much evidence to support that claim. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... The opinions of police chiefs: In a 2009 study, police chiefs in the country were surveyed on if they believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, 37% said yes, while 48% said no. So both criminologists and police chiefs agree, no it does not work as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... North Carolina empirical evidence: No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006, and the last death penalty sentence was given in 2012. However, since execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined. If cons argument was true then murder rates would have went up. Also, another comment on the rational theory thing earlier, most people given the death penalty do it "...in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness." So the idea that all people considering homicide think rationally is asinine. http://nccadp.org... I could have even more at the request of con. "False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give all the credits to the death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced." A. No but come on man, if that was true, states with the death penalty would have decreased in homicide rates, while states without it would have remained stagnant. But this just isn't true. Since all states declined, and states without the death penalty actually declined at a faster rate, we know this is false. If the death penalty deterred homicide, then those states would have decreased at a faster rate, but they decreased at a slower rate. "But from the graph, you can see that death penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates." A. But pal if what your saying had any validity, then since the death penalty deters crime better than life sentences, than those states would have dropped faster, but they dropped slower, and the margin of higher homicide in those states actually grew. What we understand from this is that whatever caused crimes to decrease was not the death penalty, as that would have led to a very high decrease with your logic, but it was actually a slower rate than states without the death penalty. "As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you." A. Me making that point was mostly me just saying that if it is for retribution but sometimes innocent people get killed it is clearly counter productive. If you are trying to say that innocent people getting killed with the death penalty, then it's wrong, I gave evidence for that. "Accidentally executing innocent people will be rebutted in a whole different header." A. OOoohhhhhhh scary. To clarify there has been about 23 people that have been proven to be innocent, but there is most likely much more that slipped through the cracks, as hundreds have been exonerated. "How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more the beginning of my round... Without any evidence all I can say is saying the death penalty costs u to 5 times more." A. Here they pretend like I gave no evidence that the death penalty costs more, which is 100% inaccurate. But I will do it again. First let me explain why a capital punishment case costs more, in a capital punishment case: two attorneys are required paid at a higher price and a team of legal experts, extra payments to jurors, the expense of appeals and sentencing hearings, and the cost to house people convicted, where prisoners much actually stay in special units that cost more for extra security, some times for decades. So this is why the death penalty costs more, now the numbers again. http://nccadp.org... The death penalty costs between $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case, for the reasons I stated, while an average life sentence of 40 years in prison costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. http://okcadp.org... So yes it does cost more. "Furthermore, pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea." A. Well if the death penalty is in practice, (which I don't agree with) then it should be at a state level. However this is irrelevant because we are arguing over is the death penalty a good idea as it is practiced in the U.S today. Look I already gave you empirical and logical evidence as to why murder rates go down with our without the death penalty, and recent history shows they actually decrease much faster without the death penalty, as the margin between states with the death penalty homicide rates and ones without has actually grew larger from 1990 to 2014. So what my opponent says at the end is fundamentally flawed, as his evidence is simply when the death penalty started murder rates decreased in those states, but from the fact that this trend went on in states with and without the death penalty we can conclude this was not due to the death penalty. Whether the death penalty is evil or not is subjective. |
26 | b760075c-2019-04-18T17:06:45Z-00003-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Standardized Tests Standardized tests are not an effective method to determine a student's academic success. Standardized tests simplify the learning process to multiple choice answers and discourage students to think outside of the box. Students, especially those of a young age deal with a great amount of stress from test taking because they become nervous and overwhelmed with not only the testing process but the studying beforehand. Instead of enjoying school they are losing sight of the most important part of education: learning. Students are indeed learning which answers are "correct" or "incorrect" by multiple choice. Yet, isn't it most important that students are learning to understand why these answers are correct or incorrect? Don't we want our children to question and understand the information they are being taught as well as the world around them? Is that not the purpose of education in the first place? Consider the troubles these students are encountering when dealing with standardized tests and how this affects the learning process. |
35 | 5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00000-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violent Video Games Um yea...Thanks for the time and I hope y'all enjoy. will debate this later if anyone wants. |
43 | 51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00003-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Before starting the debate, here are a few rules: 1. Please do not write things that are too off topic. (Things that are off topic, but related are okay) 2. Please, do not be rude. Argument 1: A lot of bottled water are actually just filtered tap water. Buying a pitcher water filter is cheaper than buying bottled water in the long term. [2] "In 2006, the Earth Policy Institute , a Washington-based NGO, found that around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water with minerals added later on, questioning assumptions over its special health impact. Similarly, research carried out by the University of Geneva for conservation group WWF in 2001 found that bottled water is not safer than tap water unless consumed in areas where water is contaminated. " [1] 2. Tap water contains fluoride, which is good for your teeth unless overdosed. "According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, infants begin to need fluoride supplements when they are six months old. If your local drinking water (tap water) contains at least 0.3 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, then it is usually best that they get that fluoride from fluoridated water. While you can instead give your child fluoride drops, there is the risk that he will get too much fluoride if he also drinks fluoridated water and gets too much fluoride, which can cause tooth staining." [3] 3. Bottled water is 10,000 times more expensive than tap, can be distributed without meeting tap water standards or testing for E.coli. Bottled water is also more wasteful, only 1 in 5 are recycled. [4] [1]http://www.totallydrinkable.com... [2]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com... [3]http://pediatrics.about.com... [4]www.onlineeducation.net/bottled_water |
9 | fe10ede9-2019-04-18T11:30:33Z-00003-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Public school students should wear uniforms I do not have time to post a full argument. I will be back in the next round. |
49 | fff4a963-2019-04-18T12:39:15Z-00000-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Should voting be mandatory I'm not supporting this argument, I just think you need to learn how to spell "fair" in this context, and how to properly use the term "you're." |
40 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | 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 |
2 | 18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar. |
40 | a490dae6-2019-04-18T18:18:34Z-00006-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Death Penalty The death penalty may give more closure to the family who have lost someone due to a murder... However, it is not going to bring back their loved one. A life sentence is much better then the death penalty, because the death penalty is allowing the States to have control over the life of someone. Retribution is in fact revenge, the simple fact of sentencing someone to the death penalty is revenge for their supposed crime. The State is never 100% sure if that was the person who committed the crime unless it was caught on video surveillance, even so, the death penalty is not going to stop others outside the court to continue their crimes. |
2 | e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated I've never claimed that I'm okay with "kids" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; "Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. " Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/ |
49 | 8375938-2019-04-18T19:45:55Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. I will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the United States as the basis country and governmental system we discuss, as he must agree that it is. Off of his 1 argument: Private is defined as not open or accessible to the general public. My opponent tries to argue the point that a public area no longer becomes public once you put cameras into it. Public as I defined before is open to all persons. So if we put more surveillance cameras in a grocery store, does it become a private venue? No, it does not. It is still accessible to the public, but rather the increase in surveillance cameras will make the public feel safer. Private areas can also certainly have cameras, but that's not the point of this debate. Off of his 2 argument: Look to my third contention where I talk about how this resolution says should happen. I don't have to provide a budgetary plan or show the pragmatics of the situation. But even if I had to compare budgetary plans, his alternative to cameras are security guards which would cost a lot more money than surveillance cameras, and you would have to keep paying them every single year. I will further discuss this in his third and fourth arguments. Off of his 3 argument: The security guards can stop criminals right there, but cameras can also catch them and make sure they don't get away. Do not let this debate round become surveillance cameras against security guards. We are here to discuss surveillance cameras and whether or not they should be substantially increased in public areas. Not whether security guards or surveillance cameras are better. Both are affective, both can stop the rate of crime, and both can potentially insure the three Ss very well. But the obligation of the con is not to bring up other options, cause if that was so he could abuse that by saying we should increase satellite surveillance of people, or bring in the military to protect public areas. Once again, let's stay topical and let's have a discussion about the pros and cons of substantially increasing surveillance cameras in public areas and if it should happen. Off of his 4 argument: Okay, he likes to bring the issue of money, and I don't think it needs to be a huge issue, but if he wants it to be an issue then let's talk about the costs of a security guard to a camera. A good surveillance camera would be two to three thousand dollars. So for example…..a Target wants to increase security in a store. So they can either get two more surveillance cameras for a cost from about four to six thousand dollars or they can hire two security guards for $20 dollars an hour as my opponent said. Let's say a Target is open 6am-11pm. That would be 17 hours, 40 dollars each hour for the two shifts (more than two guys would hold the shifts). In that day alone it would be $680, for a 7 day week, it would be $4760. In nearly a week, the store would have paid the shifts for the security guards as much as they would for a surveillance camera. If he wants to bring up maintenance, then I'll include that, but that would be chump change to the amounts his security guard idea would bring up. The store could install many cameras even before touching the costs of what two shifts at security guard alone would cost. But even beyond the cost, surveillance cameras, will keep criminals off. If a criminal knows that a store is full of surveillance cameras they will be extremely less likely to commit a crime. But once again do not buy his counter-plan because this is not intended to be a comparison between anything he can bring up against surveillance cameras, but rather, once again, a discussion and debate only about surveillance cameras. Now moving on to my side of the debate. Against his attacks on my 1st contention: Safe is defined as dependable or trustworthy. It can also be defined as careful to avoid danger. I do accomplish increasing safe because by installing more surveillance cameras I install something that is dependable or trustworthy. I also, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, do what is careful to avoid danger. It keeps tabs on dangerous people, so that if they do commit acts in these public areas we discuss, they will get caught, and plus by using a surveillance camera you get a sure view of what happened in the crime, thus making it easier to catch, indict, and prosecute a criminal. He may try to bring up security guards again, but still that's not the point of this debate round, it's too discuss surveillance cameras. I think that they indeed SHOULD increase the number of surveillance cameras, because that would accomplish increasing safety, thus I'm doing what is right. Against his attacks on my 2nd contention: I grow tired of his security guard arguments because my obligation is not to prove why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. So I will prove why I do accomplish the three Ss. But I will not tell you why I do it better than security guards, because that is not my obligation. The resolution would have made it an issue if it was, but I do not have to continue comparing surveillance cameras to security guards. I accomplish the three Ss in this way. Safety is accomplished because of what I discussed in the paragraph just before this one, so look to those for how I accomplish safety. Security is accomplished, because security is can be defined as well founded-confidence of one's protection. There is no doubt that surveillance cameras can make one have well-founded confidence of one's protection. I have don't have to compare whether or not security guards do this better or worse, because that is not what the resolution asks. Finally, stability is found on the pro as well. Stability is defined as the state or quality of being stable. I do accomplish being stable because by having a structured system of surveillance cameras I have balanced stability. So because I provide and accomplish the three Ss it is shown that surveillance cameras are beneficial to society, therefore that's why I believe surveillance cameras in public areas, once again, should be substantially increased. Against his attack on my 3rd contention: Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. There is no set number, but the resolution implies that some camera were already in place, so I believe by increasing the number of them, I increase the potential of maintaining the three Ss. Also, pull through the points that he some what rebutted in other spots, that we don't have to discuss economics. It is a SHOULD resolution, not a plans and policy resolution. So in the end, I provide as to why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. I show how I get the three Ss of safety, security, and stability. We are here to debate surveillance cameras, and not security guards. Please do not accept his counter-plan because as I just stated in 3rd contention rebuttal that it is a SHOULD resolution, and not a plans and policy resolution. That is why I can only see a Pro vote at the end of this round |
49 | e5f6de75-2019-04-18T14:04:51Z-00003-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police Brutality Happy debating! Police officers using excessively violent means to deal with criminal and even non-criminal activity is not how the men and women that are supposed to "Protect and Serve" us should act. Race and ethnicity impact decisions.1. ) African Americans are assaulted or killed by police more than any other race and, according to Justice on Trial (2000), 70% of traffic stops involved black drivers yet only 17% of traffic crimes were actually committed by blacks. Severe acts toward a group based on race is not justice! Even criminals have Constitutional rights.1. ) Through the 6th Amendment the accused have the right to a fair trial to determine guilt. If officers take it upon themselves to dish out judgement, this right is taken from the accused. Violence breeds violence.1. ) When police use excessive force it causes reason for distrust and rebellion. These feelings lead even the innocent to act out. |
14 | 94f0819e-2019-04-18T18:14:06Z-00006-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural *Void* Please let this be a tie. |
27 | 90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00006-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws It is true that gun control policies are hard to enforce but the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement. The basic argument put out by PoeJoe is not that control is bad, but that it is hard to enforce. That reason does not mean and that these policies should be abandoned. As for your argument that gun control rates increase with stricter gun control laws you fail to acknowledge alternate causes. Look at the places you cite as examples, D.C. and New Jersey. Both those places have huge poverty rates, some of the biggest in the nation. It is no surprise that D.C. and Jersey would have increased crime since the people there are so desperate. Here are some stats that tend to prove the foregoing point: In 1987, more than 3,000 men aged 15 to 24 were murdered with firearms in the U.S. (annual homicide rate in this age group was 21.9 per 100,000 people, three quarters of these gun murders). Canada, with about one-fifth U.S. population, had 17 gun murders in this category (overall rate, 2.9 per 100,000.) And Japan lost eight young men (overall rate 0.5 per 100,000.) As for humans being inherently evil, that is simply not true. Sociological studies show that humans come into this world tabula rassa, meaning blank slate. If you want to cut down on violent crime you have to attack the root of it, the poverty and accessibility of firearms to the public. So my position is not only for strict gun control laws, but more enforcement. The USFG should pass legislation to crack down on the illegal gun trade. Basically there is major laws dealing with stopping the illegal gun trade but the money and resources are not there. Proper funding and resources have to given to the members of the law enforcement community. There are only 22 federal gun control laws, of which 20 are not enforced due to the lack of funding. Third-Way.com explains it: "The current Administration has not displayed anywhere near the same aggressiveness with the other 20 major federal firearms laws, even though enforcement of most of these laws could greatly reduce gun violence. Prosecutions for 11 of the remaining 20 major federal gun laws were either the same or lower in 2002 than 2000. For example, the number of corrupt gun store prosecutions dropped from 36 to 27. The number of prosecutions for illegally selling to a minor stayed at 7. The number of federal prosecutions for lying on the background check form did increase – from 501 to 587 cases – but that still means that 99.6% of violators were not prosecuted in FY2002, compared to 99.7% in FY 2000. During the first full fiscal year of the Bush Administration, the proportion of federal cases devoted to the two most frequently prosecuted statutes actually increased from 83% to 86% of total federal prosecutions. Crimes associated with corrupt gun stores, illegal firearms traffickers, straw purchasers, gun thieves, those who obliterate firearm serial numbers, sell to minors, bring guns to schools, and lie on a background check form to obtain a firearm were barely enforced under President Clinton and are still barely enforced under President Bush. " |
15 | 21c326f7-2019-04-18T16:30:38Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animals shouldn't be used in circuses I say that they should be in circuses they are for are entertainment and the are neat to see |
8 | fb4c445b-2019-04-18T11:54:17Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | should abortion be legal Abortion should be illegal and I can give a few reasons. one, if you were the baby that was killed from abortion, how would you feel if you were that baby? There are just so many innocent babies that have been murdered because of abortion. Abortion is simply unfair to a baby. Another reason abortion should be illegal is because doctors have to live with PTSD. Doctors every day who don't believe in abortion have to kill innocent babies and often suffer from PTSD. It is not fair to make doctors kill innocent babies that they don't want to kill. By making abortion illegal, no more doctors will suffer from PTSD, and no more innocent babies will be killed. Abortion is a harm to babies with absolutely no benefits. For these reasons, abortion should be illegal. |
29 | abb8f548-2019-04-18T18:08:58Z-00003-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | This House Supports Free Immigration Many thanks Con for clarifying your stance, I must admit this is now going to be a difficult debate on my part. I shall have to martial my facts and evidence accordingly. Here goes. In Defense of free Immigration: Immigration is one of the most difficult and divisive issues for freedom lovers. Many believe in government restrictions on immigration, either for their own sake or as an interim measure so long as the United States has welfare programs that are presumed to attract immigrants, who then become net recipients of government revenue at the cost of taxpayers. Most arguments against immigration, coming from partisans of freedom, boil down one way or another to the notion that free immigration fosters socialism and moves American society away from the libertarian ideal. It is argued that immigrants use welfare programs and encourage their expansion; or that immigrants modify American culture generally for the worse, bringing from their native countries alien and socialistic ideas; or that free immigration itself constitutes a de facto trespass against the private-property rights of Americans; or some combination of the above arguments is advanced. C1. It harms the country they move from: There is no evidence to support this. If Cons argument on overpopulation in America is anything to go by then it would be hypocritical for him to state that the migrant"s home country would be benefited if said countries population would be larger. C2. Immigration harms the country they move to: Some pro-immigration libertarians have attempted to show that illegal immigrants actually receive less in welfare than they pay in taxes or even less than what native-born Americans receive, on average. This argument, as useful as it may be, circumvents the fundamental issues of immigration policy. (I, for one, think that if open immigration overloads the welfare system, causing it to collapse, so much the better.) In exploring immigration as a social service welfare issue, let us consider that it is not only opponents of social welfare who oppose open borders because of a perceived relationship between immigration and the welfare issue. European countries with socialist economies oftentimes have extremely strict immigration policies, and citizens of those countries oftentimes see that open immigration threatens their welfare state, which they strive to maintain. American advocates of social welfare policies also see the incompatibility between their pet programs and a free flow of immigrants. In a recent interview with Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader implied such an incompatibility, as well as a conception that the government should centrally plan the economy, when he said, "I don"t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here." He went on to say, This is the reason the Wall Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage policy. . .. [Illegal immigrants] should be given all the fair-labor standards and all the rights and benefits of American workers, and if this country doesn"t like that, maybe they will do something about the immigration laws. Nader is willing to bet that an expansion of labor regulations and economic socialism would lead to tighter immigration controls, which he appears to advocate. Conservatives have at times attempted to restrict the ability of immigrants to receive welfare benefits, such as with the notable 1994 Californian voter initiative, Proposition 187. This is surely a better method to reduce any problems immigration might have regarding the welfare state, when compared to giving the government more power and money to keep out immigrants who only seek work and freedom. It is more politically viable and more realistic, and reduces the activity of the state, rather than increasing dependence on it. (Ideally, of course, immigrants would be exempt not only from welfare but from taxes as well. Even more ideally, these exemptions would also apply to citizens.) All in all, any alleged relationship between free immigration and a growing welfare state is irrelevant to the underlying issue and lacks tangible evidence in regards to be destructive e.g the UK and Russia, as pointed out by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is pro free immigration. As Hoppe explains, [The effect of immigration on social service welfare] is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly. In consideration of the United Kingdom, I am currently here and have just started school at Harrow. I can certainly advocate that the education here has not been affected by immigration, in fact if one considers the new 2012 international university survey they will find that the United Kingdom has 4 schools within the top 6, and from a country nearly the size of Florida that is a remarkable feat. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Therefore, I cannot accept that the education has been affected in the UK, I will go as far as to say that Harrow is far superior to the education I received back home in the US. Additionally, My father is English, therefore I have English family. My English Aunt who recently discovered she had cancer underwent emergency treatment and medication in 2010, she has since made a full recovery and has no bills to pay. Here it can be deduced that immigration has not affected the medical system as Con suggests. No welfare problem or attack on social services (as Con has pointed out) is ultimately the result of immigration. Therefore, I urges us to separate these issues conceptually. C3. It harms cultural relations: Some, including this writer, often argue that immigration is a blessing to the culture of America, which has always been a nation with a large immigrant population. The expanded variety in foods, music, art, and traditions is one of the things that makes America the great country it is. Con argues that immigrants bring with them foreign customs, practices, and ideas, which, on balance, compromise the tradition of American liberty embraced by native-born Americans, whose Anglo-European heritage provides them with an affinity for the rule of law and constitutional liberty or who simply have assimilated and come to embrace freedom over socialism. There are weaknesses with this argument, seeing that many immigrants come especially because they seek freedom, not the socialism or despotism characteristic of the countries from which they come. To the extent that they come for the socialism that already exists in America, it testifies as much against the socialist tendencies of Americans, who enact such policies, as it does against the foreigners who seek them. However, like the welfare/social issue, the cultural impact of immigration is really secondary to what kind of immigration policy is fit for a free country. Many libertarian policies will tolerate culturally and even morally questionable trends, but we who cherish freedom believe that such vices will pale in importance when compared with the moral virtues and practical benefits of maximized freedom such as America so bravely and stridently fights for, as well as the moral and cultural greatness that such freedom, on balance, nurtures. Open versus restricted immigration and employment: So the real question is whether open immigration or restricted immigration as Con may prefer, is the more appropriate policy for a free country. One argument against open immigration, given by some, is that in an ideal world almost all land would be private, but in the meantime illegal immigrants who use public space are essentially trespassing on what should be the privately owned land of native-born Americans. It is indeed true that we should maximize how much land is owned privately. If nearly all land were private, landlords, employers, merchants, and others would determine who could enter their property. Every property owner would have his own "immigration" policy. The fact is as Con skimmed, landlords, employers, and merchants currently allow immigrants on their land all the time, and in many cases would be more open to immigrants if they did not fear legal repercussions. The only question that remains is what to do about public property, including much of the land along the national borders. Whereas in a free society property owners along the border would be free to allow foreigners to enter their property, opponents of open immigration believe that the government must, in the interim, forbid people from allowing immigrants onto their own land. The philosophical case for prohibiting immigrants on public land " and by corollary, effectively keeping them out of the country and off the private land of willingly accommodating owners " as an extension of private property rights is highly problematic. Why would such a rationale not be fitting to limit, by law, the number of children a family can have? If a middle-class family has 10 children, certainly it takes up an amount of space disproportional to its income and what it pays in taxes. Every day we see the willingness of Americans to accommodate immigrants. The market supports them. They work, purchase goods and services, and pay for housing. Their use of public resources and land, if anything, is a problem with the status of so much property as public " just as their potential abuse of welfare is a problem with welfare itself. Continuing to shut out immigrants, or becoming even more restrictive with the borders, further reinforces the notion that so much public land should be protected by government, and takes us a step away from our ultimate goal of eventually privatizing it. Once most land is privatized, most immigrants would be able to find work and housing in the marketplace, and in the meantime the government cannot mimic the proper supply and demand for labor in lieu of market mechanisms. Furthermore, the use of the federal government to control borders contributes directly to socialism far more than the immigrants themselves. Just like all other federal government programs, immigration controls are a form of socialism. They involve bloated budgets, bureaucracy, central planning, taxation, abusive police powers, intrusions in the marketplace, and widespread corruption. Immigration controls are expensive, and they clearly don"t work that well. More than a million foreigners enter America illegally every year. A serious attempt to keep them out would require even higher taxes, a more militarized border patrol, and vast invasions of the privacy of employers and other Americans. It would potentially require a national ID card, as well as an army of border police and federal agents to round up and repatriate illegals. It would depend on central planning, which, as all free-market economists should know, simply doesn"t work. The border guards have already been implicated in a number of scandals, and the idea that the government can maintain efficiency and honesty in its border police, when the federal government does a poor job of preventing corruption and degradation among city police, prison guards, and even in the highly regimented military, requires quite a stretch of the imagination. As borders are tightened, a black market in immigration will expand, leading to increased violence and government corruption. The war on drugs has utterly failed to keep drugs out of the country, and yet has succeeded in draining away enormous resources and eroding precious civil liberties; a war on immigrants would yield similar results. Immigration, the Declaration, and the United States Constitution: Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, free immigration is totally constitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close the borders. It is a step in the wrong direction to violate the Constitution further, simply to allow one favored government program to slip through. Such leniency with the Constitution, after all, is how we wound up with so much socialism and freedom in the first place. This brings us to the question of the history of immigration control. Many Americans point to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration Act, which loosened restrictions on immigration somewhat, and associate them with Lyndon Johnson"s socialist Great Society programs of the same era, believing they are another indication that free immigration and socialism go hand in hand. This does not necessarily follow any more than Andrew Jackson"s opposition to central banking and his atrocious Trail of Tears, when taken together, demonstrate that free-market banking goes hand in hand with the brutal displacement of American Indians. Still, it is often useful to see the political movements associated with certain political trends and opinions. In the case of immigration, we can go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson cited King George III"s obstruction to immigration to the colonies as a grievance: "He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." For most of U.S. history, there were virtually no immigration controls. Some northern states had Black Codes that kept free blacks from entering. Eventually, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Therefore, in light of the evidence, I refer back to my original statement that it is anti American to go against free immigration; it is immoral, unjust, and hypocritical in light of American legislation, the Constitution, our history, and an insult to our military personnel who are currently at war in the name of freedom and said principles. |
34 | 6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00003-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites are good for our society! Social networking sites are good for our society! |
24 | 825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, "Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that "high" income tax on any profits. |
38 | d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana Should medical marijuana be legal or no? |
47 | 1f64bf69-2019-04-18T14:54:36Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Dogs>Cats CAT STDS BITCh http://wtvr.com... GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL G |
31 | 6c3b36ba-2019-04-18T14:58:51Z-00003-000 | Is obesity a disease? | We should introduce a 'fat tax' Statistics (1) More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. Adults are obese. Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%). (2) Non-Hispanic meaning not Latin American e.g the United States and its Hispanic neighbours. Obesity is higher among middle age adults, 40-59 years old (39.5%) than among younger adults, age 20-39 (30.3%) or adults over 60 or above (35.4%) adults. Amazingly, (3) shows that no state or territory has <20% of obesity in the US population. Australia is also horrendous, (4) in the fact that 63% of adults are obese, 25% of children are overweight or obese and that it is the 2nd highest contributor to burden of disease.Overweight and obesity (high BMI) is the second highest contributor to burden of disease, after dietary risks. Smoking is the third highest. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. Was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. Dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. Never the less, it proves that the USA, UK and Australia is some of the most obese countries in the world, thanks to Con's points. (5) Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980. In 2014, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 600 million were obese.39% of adults aged 18 years and over were overweight in 2014, and 13% were obese. Most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight. 42 million children under the age of 5 were overweight or obese in 2013. Obesity is preventable. NHS and diseases The tax was introduced in October 2011, (6) in an attempt to limit the population's intake of fatty foods, and reduce obesity rates. According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47% of Danes are overweight and 13% are obese (UK). Any food with a saturated fat content of more than 2.3 per cent will be taxed at a rate of 16 kronor (£1.85) per kilogram of saturated fat. The move will add the equivalent of 25p to a pack of butter and 8p on a pack of crisps. This is statistically working on our society, changing peoples decisions on food. Appallingly, with obesity numbers rising so fast — with it estimated that by 2050 the cost to the NHS (at current prices) could reach £9.7 billion a year — the wider cost to society might push £50 billion (7) The National Health Service: in the UK, a system that provides free medical care and is paid for through taxes. The NHS should certainly not be wasting money on obese patients, but with obesity, comes many diseases. (8) High blood pressure- Above people who are 25, 75 million people that are obese suffer from High blood pressure. Diabetes- 90% of people who have diabetes suffer from type 2 diabetes. Heart disease- people who are under 45 have the greatest risk of getting heart diseases. Cancer- if you are obese you have a 50% chance of getting cancer. Depression- depression increases by 55% if you are obese. Gallstones- If you are a women, gallstones can deeply effect you. There are many more diseases, but I just named a few. Impact on the Minority Con stated at the bottom of paragraph five that 'most people don't likes paying taxes, especially when they do nothing for them'. In the fact that 63% of adults in Australia, 34.9% of US, 25% of UK and 39% of adults world wide are obese; don't you think we are in a way helping the wider people to live. Helping decrease cancer risks and other diseases, we are truly helping our society. 'Most people including myself eat chocolate, cake, and biscuits yet have a healthy lifestyle. It is not harmful to treat yourself now and then' states Con. I agree, but most people cannot control themselves and end up eating more than one/two pieces. I do a lot of sport, so when I go to school with my friends we have ice-cream every lunch and share lollies. (Now I think about it) my friends are overweight. Unless you even up the food with fitness it is okay, but some people could have 1 large fries from MacDonald's, chips, lollies, gum and 2 pieces of chocolate cake. You can't burn that off unless you do 5 hours f intense training. Burpees are hard- jump, push up, get up and repeat.(9) You have to do 524 burpees to burn off 1 large fries from Maccas. Fatter foods 'Many foods like cheese, butter, and milk will fall into the unhealthy label, when actually they can be good for you, and better than alternatives like margarine, so people trying to eat more healthily may find it harder financially to achieve their goal'- Con. Instead of full cream milk or fat milk, there is always the alternative of skim milk or low fat milk. Milk isn't unhealthy as it has many essential vitamins like calcium. Calcium helps your body develop stronger bones, hair, skin, nails and in general it is good for your body. Margarine and butter are basically the same. Butter has more fat than margarine but margarine has more chemicals than butter. The two won't be 'fat' because for a sandwich or a piece of toast you only add a bit. Unless you go eating the whole tub, margarine and butter are healthy in small quantities. Technically, financial matters will even out. If everyone ate healthily in the first place, we wouldn't have to get the 'fat tax.' Besides that, there would be less waist on money and resources for obese people. Such as the 'lager people ambulance'. Cheap food isn't good for you, you would end up getting not enough vitamins into your body. Then you'd have to use money on pills, treatment, doctors appointments etc. It all works out in the end. Fat tax benefits The fat tax will ensure the hospitals facilities and ambulances, it will make our society healthier, it will decrease the amount of deaths and will make the environment more of a healthy happy place. Overall, the Fat Tax will certainly be of benefit to our economy. Decreasing deaths and diseases whilst increasing well-being and healthy life style, the Fat Tax is a brilliant invention; helping our society to be a healthier place. Sources:' Statics' websites: (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://www.aihw.gov.au... (5) http://www.who.int... 'NHS and diseases' websites:(6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (7) http://www.macmillandictionary.com...(8) https://www.mediweightlossclinics.com... 'Impact on the minority' websites:(9) http://www.urbandojo.com... 'Fat Tax benefits' websites:(10) http://www.heraldsun.com.au... |
17 | d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00000-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana. |
21 | b567d7db-2019-04-18T12:55:48Z-00000-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. This is a much deeper topic and, i'll say again, this is a scientific debates. Just because politicians have used it to pick sides, doesn't mean it has to be political. I don't feel you've sufficiently countered my points and I'll go a step further. I've found a nice article showing that it's a much deeper issue than what you have alluded to and there is plenty of evidence that, while we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, you're idea of threat does not have enough to stand on. http://www.americantraditions.org...(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm |
19 | 4686f91-2019-04-18T15:19:05Z-00003-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage should Not be Permitted Thanks, Zarroette. My case:HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICEPro drops all my evidence.It is worth noting here that Pro again calls upon her Is/Ought fallacy to justify her logic. She writes: "it is wrong because marriage is orientated towards...[the] children their union produces." Here, she makes a moral/ought judgment about the "wrongness" of something based on a factual claims about how "marriage is orientated."INJUSTICEP1. DiscriminationI. Recognizing Actual DifferencePro's argument is reliant on her claim that marriage is for procreation, and that gay couples are unfit to that end. Unfortunately, Pro logic presents a problem: if infertile couples are allowed to marry, Pro is allowing people who cannot procreate into the union of marriage. Why is it then okay to permit infertile, heterosexual couples' entry into matrimony, but not to allow gay couples' the same right? Neither group can procreate; both groups are consenting adults. The only real explanation for excluding gay couples is thus discrimination.But, even if you don't buy this argument, if you buy into any of the previous arguments I made about how marriage is not necessarily about procreation, then that eliminates Pro's criterion for establishing some kind of just difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals that would allow one group to marry while not allowing the other group to do so. So, all of those arguments from my last round can be cross-applied here.II. Governmental BenefitsPro suggests that "society does not exist without procreation, yet society can exist without homosexual unions." In fact, society could survive without marriage at all; people can (and do) procreate outside of matrimony. Therefore, it is not as if society could not exist without heterosexual unions. So, society"s existence is not--hyperbolically--in the balance.There are, in fact, myriad reasons for providing marriage benefits to incentivize such unions, and many of these reasons have little, if anything, to do with reproduction. Let me just rattle off a few stats here [1, 2, 3, 4]: (a) Marriage Promotes Physical and Mental Health According to my sources: Marriage reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, and increases long-term happiness. In a specific study in Arizona, for example, unmarried people were 3-4 times more likely to be dissatisfied with life. Married women suffer less psychological distress compared to unmarried women, and unmarried people are 3x more like to commit suicide. Unmarried individuals are also at an "elevated risk for STDs because of multiple partnership." [4] (b) Marriage promotes Social and Economic Stability Again, according to my sources: Income is higher for married couples, and marriage itself becomes a means of generating wealth for families. Furthermore, married couples experience less than half the incidence of domestic violence as co-habiting couples and are 3 times less likely to be victims of violent crime than those who are divorced or unmarried.In addition to these facts, it is also clear that: "Being married changes people's lifestyles and habits in ways that are personally and socially beneficial. Marriage is a 'seedbed' of prosocial behavior." [1] "The relational ties and community assets forged through marriage result in many positive outcomes for society. Marriage...fosters social connections, civil and religious involvement, and charitable giving. Marriage connects men and women to the larger community and encourages personal responsibility, family commitment, community voluntarism, and social altruism." [2]The conclusion we can draw from (a) and (b) is that government benefits that are designed to incentivize marriage may be offered not because of the link between marriage and procreation, but rather because of the link between marriage and social cohesion and the general welfare. The latter is most definitely something gay couples can link to, and the former (though the use of artificial means) is not out of their reach either. So, if society has an interest in encouraging marriage for reasons other than procreation, it should include gay couples because gay couples can help achieve those other reasons.Pro also writes: "All these benefits exist to make child-bearing and child-rearing easier for married couples." But that's just false. The government benefits given to married couples are not just benefits designed to help parents rear children. Gay couples are denied things such as spousal privilege, which has little to do with raising children, but more to do with ensuring cohesion between the couple, in furtherance of the social benefits I described above. So, even if marriage were about procreation, there is no justification for denying gay couples these benefits of marriage; yet, in the status quo, this discrimination persists. Note that Pro drops/concedes that civil unions are unequal to marriage, and do not confer the same legal benefits (e.g. spousal privilege) to gay couples. She also (again) resorts to her Is/Ought fallacy when she writes: "homosexual marriage is still unjust due to the nature of marriage."P2. Social Stigma and OtherizationIf you buy from the evidence above, and perhaps even from the historic analysis I presented last round, that marriage is not about procreation, but rather about ensuring social cohesion and social stability, then the stigmatizing and otherizing impact of denying gay people marriage rights has direct and important relevance to this debate. If you buy that marriage is even partly about social goals other than procreation, these arguments are still going to weigh. I. Marriage Would Lower "Psychological Distress"I am assuming that when Pro objects to my source showing the connection between higher levels of distress and a lack of marriage rights, she is referring to my source number 18 from Round 2. All the methodological information from that source was easily accessible if Pro had scrolled down and clicked "Click here for the full study." A link to additional (and methodological) information from this source has been provided as source number [7] in this round. Extend the study, as her only rebuttal against it is now defunct. Furthermore, there are good rational reasons to believe that marriage equality reduces suicide. [8]I would also note that Pro falls prey to her very own objection. She cites a study without giving a URL, so I cannot access it to examine its veracity either.Next, I will cite evidence showing how gay couples who marry actually have long lifespans than those who don't. In Denmark, the first country to legalize civil unions, a study was conducted using the country's civil registry: "During the study period, about 1.7 million of the people in the registry died, allowing the researchers to calculate mortality rates for the 29-year period. Controlling for education, income, city and population density, the researchers found that marriage made a difference...[Since] same-sex marriage was introduced, mortality rates among gays and lesbians who got married have declined. As of 2011, men in same-sex marriages were only 1.4 times more likely to die during the study period than men in opposite-sex marriages, a number lower than unmarried or divorced men." [5, for further reading see: 6] Moreover, gay marriage helps reduce HIV rates. [9, 10] So even if there is a higher suicide rate, overall lower mortality rates show that it is actually better (in terms of longevity) to be a married homosexual.Regarding the Netherlands study, I never suggested that marriage equality would end the psychological harms experienced by gay people, but I did suggest it would reduce those harms, which is what my evidence shows. Pro's source shows that homosexuals there still suffer illness at a higher rate, but what her source doesn't show is whether or not that rate is less than it was prior to the legalization of gay marriage (which my evidence does); so, her evidence doesn"t disprove my claim. I have a study that proves my claim; Pro has no study that disproves it. II. Children Under Homosexual MarriageCross-apply my Round 2 arguments about gay parenting here. Pro asserts that because gay families are at great risk of "humiliation," that they shouldn't raise kids. But that's just perverse. It's basically saying that because society otherizes gay families, they should be denied the right to raise kids. That does gay people a double wrong. Also, on page 262 of the Sweden report, the researchers write, "[o]ur data is based on legal unions of short durations only, so we can say nothing about the fraction of unions that eventually will end in disruption." Additionally, the report cannot prove that gay couples in general have higher divorce rates, since it is possible that the years sampled were not reflective of general trends.III. Heterosexuals are the MajoritySo what? Just because African-Americans were the minority didn"t justify enslaving them for cheap labor. Justice and morality are universal concepts, and apply just as much to the minority as the majority.SOURCES1 - http://www.foryourmarriage.org...2 - http://www.usccb.org...3 - http://azpolicypages.com...4 - http://www.guttmacher.org...5 - http://m.livescience.com...6 - http://www.cbsnews.com...7 - http://ajph.aphapublications.org...8 - http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk...9 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...10 - http://shared.web.emory.edu... |
14 | 606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Birth Control is Immoral honestly i read the debate wrong and i just wanna surrender cause i don't wanna do it... |
38 | b0a1297b-2019-04-18T17:56:41Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes It appears this debate has become principally focused on the medical benefits of marijuana as opposed to its potential dangers; therefore, whether or not I am able to sustain the resolution of this debate will depend primarily on my ability to demonstrate that marijuana's medicinal advantages outweigh it's downfalls.Sustaining the Medicinal Advantages of Marijuana:Cancer:I have provided various authoritative research studies, all of which confirm marijuana's ability to prevent and/or treat a number of cancers, including breast, brain, and lung cancer [1] [2] [3]. As my sources state, such studies have been conducted by respected universities and esteemed researchers.Multiple Sclerosis:I have effectively demonstrated through authoritative research that marijuana helps individuals suffering from multiple sclerosis by decreasing spastic movement and pain [4]. Alzheimer's:I have provided evidence that marijuana has been found to inhibit amyloid plaque (a primary pathological marker) much more effectively than other currently medically approved substances, thereby providing significant help for people suffering from Alzheimer's [5].Arthritis:By presenting authoritative research, I have demonstrated that marijuana possesses the ability to help arthritis sufferers with their pain [6].Chronic Pain:I have provided strong evidence that marijuana helps with pain in general, most importantly chronic pain [7].Other Benefits:I have provided research demonstrating that marijuana helps prevent and/or treat glaucoma, epileptic seizures, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, muscle tension, muscle spasm, insomnia, and inflammatory bowel disease [8] [9].Addressing the Potential Dangers of Marijuana:Cancer:The only kind of cancer my opponent cites as a potential danger of marijuana is related to marijuana smoke. I've stated numerous times that such a point is moot, seeing as how marijuana need not be consumed through smoking. My opponent states that I have dropped this point, but I have done no such thing; rather, I have provided strong evidence to counter my opponent's claims.Heart Disease:As far as I could find, the source my opponent has provided says nothing of marijuana, only cocain. My opponent also states that my source link does not lead to the information I've provided, which is true; I'm not entirely sure what happened to my link and I apologize for the inconvenience -- the information can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Again, my source states that "a large cohort study showed no association of marijuana use with cardiovascular disease hospitalization or mortality," thereby refuting my opponent's claim. Immune System Deficiency:Again, the assertion that marijuana poses threats to the immune system is simply not supported by the evidence. Dr. Leo E. Hollister, Professor of Psychiatry and Pharmacology at the University of Texas Medical School has reported in a research study published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs that:"The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence [10]."Birth Defects:My opponent criticizes my source for being biased, despite the fact that he has continually used heritage.org as a source (a website whose express purpose is to propagate conservative thinking).My source quotes information reported from the National Academy of Sciences, which states that no evidential links between marijuana and birth defects have been found [11]. Although norml.org seek to legalize marijuana, it uses unbiased, peer-reviewed sources and research to accomplish its purposes.Psychological Side-Effects:Although I've conceded to the argument that paranoia is a potential side-effect of marijuana, I uphold my position that there is currently no conclusive evidence demonstrating a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia. As Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa's Dr. Jason Schiffman states in an article published in Psychiatric Research, "the onset of schizotypal symptoms generally precedes the onset of cannabis use. The findings do not support a causal link between cannabis use and schizotypal traits [12]."Carcinogens:Again, this is only a problem assuming one consumes marijuana through smoking. There a many ways to consume marijuana which do not include smoking, and therefore this point is moot.Problems with Crime:Any prescription drug faces problems with crime. Is my opponent asserting that a beneficial substance should be withheld from suffering individuals simply because criminals would do the same thing with it that they do with nearly all other prescription drugs?Conclusion:Marijuana is not a miracle drug. It does not heal everything, nor does it come without some undesirable side-effects; however, the simple fact of the matter is that most medications in general exhibit the same limited capabilities. The case I have attempted to make in this debate is that marijuana is just as suitable a medication as many other legal medicinal substances, and it therefore deserves to be considered as a serious candidate for medical legalization.I believe I have provided compelling, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of marijuana's ability to treat numerous conditions while only presenting minor or otherwise reasonable side-effects; for this, I encourage the voters to vote Pro.I further apologize for the relatively brief nature of this post (then again, perhaps you are thanking me for it :P). Seeing as how I am preparing to celebrate the new year, I have tried to keep this short; however, I believe I have managed to sufficiently communicate my case, both in this post and previous ones.I would like to thank my opponent for his contributions to this debate. I greatly appreciate his arguments, and extend my utmost sincere gratitude to him for helping to make this an enlightening and intellectually stimulating debate.Lastly, I would like to wish both my opponent, the readers, and the voters a happy new year!________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[3] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[4] http://www.reuters.com...[5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[7] http://www.webmd.com...[8] http://health.howstuffworks.com...[9] http://www.businessinsider.com...[10] http://web.acsalaska.net...[11] http://norml.org...[12] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... |
10 | ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00001-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Introduction: I am impressed by Pro's reply. I have more time to work on my argument now, so hopefully this argument will be better than the last. Analysis of the Resolution: Pro didn't say that this was a public forum debate. I'm only pointing out that the debate shouldn't hinge on things that the resolution is vague about. Rebuttals: CA1: Solvency Vaccination improves quality of life. It doesn't follow that it should be mandatory. Yacht ownership improves quality of life, but mandating it would be a harmful misallocation of resources. Pro's case is founded on unwarranted fears. In the United States today, there are only two states in which vaccine exemption is not allowed for any reason other than medical necessity: West Virginia and Mississippi [1]. I also stated that even among parents who believe vaccines are risky, 86% still fully vaccinate their children [2]. The percentage of people who believe that vaccines are dangerous appears to be small [3], and the majority of people, who believe vaccines are safe, use them at an even higher rate (98%) [2]. There is no immediate danger of falling below Pro's 90-95% herd immunity threshold. The crux of this argument is the following: if herd immunity is achieved without mandates then Pro cannot claim it as an advantage. I will further repeat my argument that government involvement in vaccination is the cause of irrational fears of vaccines in the first place. See: crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists. Providing vaccines through sources that people trust instead of through a legitimately frightening bureaucratic mechanism of total state power would alleviate much of these worries. By trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, the scientific community is creating resistance to an idea that people could otherwise be reasonably persuaded to accept. Turn Pro's graph: we don't have vaccine mandates today, but numerous diseases have been eradicated or significantly reduced. CA2: Community This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that herd immunity will be lost without mandatory vaccination. We have herd immunity and no mandatory vaccination, so that can't be true. In spite of what Pro (and seemingly every other person who I've debated this with) thinks, I fully understand the concept of herd immunity. My argument is that herd immunity is achieved through voluntary vaccination. Pro claims that the number of parents choosing to exempt their children is rising so rapidly that herd immunity will be lost in the future. She has no evidence for that prediction. At the current moment, herd immunity is secure, and the backlash from the scientific community against the anti-vaccination movement has been significant. It is just as likely that vaccine resistance will once again decline. I want to reply to a specific comment from Pro: "My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning." I don't see how my claim is disputable. In areas where disease X is more common, more vaccination against it is necessary than in areas where it is less common. When swine flu broke out, it was necessary to vaccinate against it. Now it is mostly gone, and there is no more need to vaccinate against it. Pro's argument seems to lead to the conclusion that we need to be fully vaccinated against every disease, all the time. But it should be obvious to everyone why vaccinating everyone against hundreds of strains of the common cold all the time would be an uneconomic waste of resources that could help people in other ways. Once this fact is conceded, we can see how it extends to every disease: total immunization isn't necessary. Voluntary choice has so far proven more than sufficient to meet the minimum threshold. CA3: Money I have found Pro's reply here difficult to understand. On the issue of people who cannot afford vaccines: I argued that it is non-topical. They can be provided with money to purchase vaccines without being required to do so. My calculations were simple arithmetic. Pro said that vaccines will save $231 billion over the next ten years. Assume this could be increased 10% through a mandate (very generous because more than 90% of children are fully vaccinated). That's $23.1 billion, which we divide by ten to get the annual savings: $2.31 billion. Now divide by the number of people in the US (about 350 million) to get the savings per person: it comes out to $6.60, which I rounded to $5. It is reasonable to assume that it would cost more money than this to implement a vaccine mandate. It will require an increase in administrative and law enforcement costs, which are already notoriously high. In 2011, there were 75 million children in the US[4]. That means that Pro has only about $30 to spend per child, which is considerably less than the cost of a single vaccine. In order to have the possibility of saving money, Pro's program would have to vaccinate more children than there are unvaccinated children. You will not save money by mandating vaccines for the same reason you will not save money by mandating teeth brushing: the savings of the mandate are so small compared to ordinary behavior that they will be outweighed by the cost of enforcing it. CA4: Authority I am going consider this argument conceded by Pro and not address it again. Affirmative Arguments: C1: Economic Calculation I am calling this argument dropped. Pro's reply was a complete non sequitur. The economic calculation argument says that you can never know whether an intervention in the free market is beneficial or not because the interactions between market variables are too complex. Any attempt at economic policy is just groping in the dark. Pro's reply had nothing to do with this. Just putting the same heading in and writing unrelated words isn't a response. It's not up to me to waste space repeating myself. Pro's own rule says that a drop is a concession. She must admit that she has no idea whether a vaccine mandate is really a better use of those resources than what the market would otherwise do. Replying with a non sequitur is a borderline abusive argument because I have to waste limited space explaining it. C2: Biopolitics This is a consequentialist argument based on Pro's criterion of justice: it says that by eroding certain barriers to political power, we risk grave expansions in government power. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is the existence on legal barriers to the state's use of force against the citizen's person. When we remove this restrictions, we create an environment that is legally and philosophical partial to totalitarianism. Pro's contention on authority does not address this. All it says is that it would be legal for the state to do this. I am talking about the consequences of actually doing it. Pro's argument just begs the question anyway: if I don't think the state has the authority to make these decisions, the fact that the state says it does isn't going to persuade me. The fact that the resolution applies to children does it help. It means that the state replaces the parent as the arbiter of the child's biological life. This is just as disastrous. If the state is responsible for stopping "bad parenting" as Pro says, then children are really wards of the state who their parents are allowed to care for at the state's whim. Conclusion: Pro's argument seems to assume that we have mandatory vaccination now (and this is commonly assumed). Far from it. Non-medical excuses are allowed in 48 states. Anyone who does not want their child vaccinated can cook up a religious or philosophical reason why. Thus, people who are against vaccination do in fact vaccinate their children at lower rates. But in spite of this, public vaccination has been remarkably successful. Sources: Will post all sources for the debate next round. Out of time and space. I can post them early if needed. |
19 | d9e8fdaa-2019-04-18T18:54:22Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Gay Marriage should be legalized, for if two people love one another, who are we to interfere? There are no reasons why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Marriage is about love and gender shouldnt matter. |
49 | bae3dc04-2019-04-18T18:44:45Z-00006-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Police Profiling ==Resolution==This debate is about police profiling (or racial profiling). I will oppose police profiling and affirm that it should not be used; my opponent will argue for it.==DefinitionsPolice profiling: Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual's race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual, unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime. OR a phrase often used in law enforcement or the court system to refer to the use of a person's ethnicity or race to decide on whether to engage in some type of legal proceeding. The act itself is very controversial and considered by many as illegal and inappropriate.Source: http://www.debate.org...;==Structure== Round 1 This is the acceptance round. No arguments will be added. Round 2 Con will present his first arguments and pro will present his first arguments. Round 3 First rebuttals. Round 4 Closing rebuttals/arguments. ==Burden of Proof==The burden of proof will work this way: PRO will have to present arguments FOR police profiling and I will present my arguments against; CON will then present arguments AGAINST police profiling and we both must attempt to refute the opponent's claims.==Rules==1. Cite all sources2. Be respectful3. No vulgar language4. Must abide by the structure5. Failure to comply to the structure or rules results in an automatic loss6. Forfeit results in an automatic lossGood luck and let's have a good debate. |
42 | cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00000-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Hockey is better than soccer YAY! THE FUUUUN PART. Ok. Here: I would like to point out that you did not refute all of my points. "Hockey is a faster sport." (the whole point) Pensfan states facts about how it is literally faster moving. Alright, I agree, hockey is faster, however, that does not make it better. In fact, it makes it worse! Faster players mean harder collisions. Imagine two players, going "over 30 mph" (Pensfan's figures.) That is a 60 mile collision. Enough to knock them both onto the hard ice, and that could possibly give them serious injuries. Concussion? Possible. Broken bones? Possible. Blood? Almost guaranteed. Where as in soccer, again I will use your figures, the collision would be two "20 mph" people colliding. Maybe make them stumble? Fall? But no broken bones, no concussion, and maybe a tiny bit of blood. That's all. Also, a stumble on to grass is cushioned, but a fall onto hard, hard ice, is already enough you give you a concussion. Faster pucks mean obviously harder hits if the puck hits you. I admit, a soccer ball can hit you hard and MIGHT cause an injury. If a puck hits you though, again your figure, at "105 mph", that is SURE to give you an injury. Take a peek at this video: OOF! The guy even has a visor on. That shows that in hockey, they need protection from all the flying pucks. But that protection doesn't even work properly! Lastly, if the play is moving around so fast, it is hard to track that extremely fast puck. Imagine trying to follow the puck from here: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Hard Eh? Toughness from round 2: "A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world." COMPLETELY FALSE! Here is evidence that ESPN did the study and said that "he toughest sport in the world is . . .Boxing." Source? Here: http://sports.espn.go.com... My opponent is LYING! So judges, this should be enough evidence as it is. BUT, I shall continue. Toughness is not always good. Remember we are debating the best sport in general, not just the professional version of it. It Hockey, I agree, you need to be tougher, but is that a good thing? If you have to be durable, then that kinda shuts down the door for the people who are not tough enough doesn't it? So if the professionals are tough, that doesn't mean everyone is strong to absorb a check does it? Uh….you are Pro, right? You have the point about hard Hockey is. For those who are 4, learning to play, easier is way better. If it is harder it narrows the window for playing hockey a lot for only the people who are the strongest and the best. Pretty narrow, eh? Toughness from round 3: Soccer players usually play 45 minutes in a row while hockey players go off and on in shifts of 60 seconds. Soccer fields are bigger and and are not on ice, making the running bit much more difficult. "A large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles" Tackles and spiked shoes are quite painful, so soccer players are durable as well. To doubt the toughness of soccer players is intellectually dishonest. "Embellishment" Diving, really? http://bleacherreport.com... That is 15 different dives in hockey. Ever heard of Claude Lemieux? A little outdated, but still hilarious. Players dive in both soccer and hockey. Deal with it. People cheat all the time, hockey, soccer, debates, board games, cheating is no reason to say one sport is better than another. Accuracy: May I point out that Hockey players use a stick that has been designed to be as accurate as possible, while soccer players only use their feet? If hockey players spent their time kicking a puck then we could compare the two, but the whole purpose of the hockey stick IS TO BE ACCURATE! It is almost rigged. Time: Alright, fine perhaps most soccer games are longer than hockey games, but in the NHL playoffs if the game is 0-0 then the game will continue for as long as it needs to until a goal is scored, meaning that the LONGEST HOCKEY GAME IS LONGER THAN THE LONGEST SOCCER GAME. Also, imagine you are a fan of Soccer, or a fan of Hockey. Would you rather get the average game time of 90 minutes of watching your favorite team or would you rather have less time watching your favorite team. What's more, you pay money for tickets. It's better value for you ticket to see a longer game. Scorring: Again, I agree with you, there are more goals in hockey, but hockey goals are worth less than soccer goals. Why? It's easier to score in hockey than it is to score in soccer. Another example is racing. There are more passes in indie races than F1, but F1 passes are more valuable. Skill: Um, no. Hockey players use a tool. IT'S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK. Soccer is difficult as well, I mean, on average soccer players run 7 miles in agame! That takes alot of skill. Out of Bounds. "Averages Offsides: 16 Icings: 9 Goals: 5 Penalties: 5 TV Timeouts: 12 Incidental stoppages: 34 (non-penalized skirmishes, puck leaving rink, puck frozen, etc)" That is a good amount of stoppages. Do remember that since according to you soccer games are longer, which means more stoppages. Alright, I am very tired, and a little lazy, but I think I have done a good job. Why we have won: We have provided sufficient evidence for our side We have successfully wrecked his points. He had false evidence. THANKS, DDD VOTE CON References (for the whole debate) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fifa.com...... https://www.youtube.com...; https://answers.yahoo.com... |
18 | 82dd47f2-2019-04-18T17:03:15Z-00007-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Church and State should remain separate. Thank you for accepting my challenge. To initiate my rebuttal, I would first like to address your statements in regards to religion and morality. You claim... "I will be defining religion as a set of morals or belief system that involves a deity (god to enforce or create such beliefs)"You cannot redefine what religion already is. Religion is defined to be the following...Religion (noun) - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.http://dictionary.reference.com...If you want to use " belief system that involves a deity" as a basis in your argument, you must first specify which of the millions of deities in thousands of beliefs systems you are specifically arguing for. Otherwise, your claims regarding "god" and "religion" would be invalid and irrelevant.Now that that has been clarified, I would like to address your claim... "First I would like to point out you're right about the 1st amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean that religious people can't vote based on personal conviction? When it comes down to it that's the way everyone votes, but if there's a god involved then is it not okay?" What is the First Amendment? The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. It prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. No where in the Amendment does it state that religious people are not allowed to vote based on their religious beliefs. In fact, restricting the right to vote based on personal conviction is in violation of the First Amendment and would be deemed unconstitutional. However, governmental authorities are required to remain neutral when determining laws and the First Amendment strictly prohibits the exploitation of personal religious beliefs for political control. 'The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another.' The government is also prohibited from passing laws that infringe personal freedoms of others based on personal religious convictions.http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com... You claim... "Honestly, here's the truth, when a god is not involved there is no such thing as moral truth or universal morality." This is inherently FALSE. Humans do not need to believe in any particular god to have moral convictions. Morals vary upon the individual, not their faith. For example, murder is strictly prohibited in many religions, but if some people believe in gods that condone human sacrifices. As a majority, most people view murder as something that should be considered "immoral" but some religions condone murder, so which one is correct? The answer is determined by science, neurology and basic biology. Our innate determination of what is perceived as "right" and "wrong" are both influenced by society and by our brains. The frontal lobe is one of the four major divisions of the cerebral cortex. This part of the brain regulates decision making, problem solving, control of purposeful behaviors, consciousness, and emotions. Humans mainly know "right" from "wrong" of an action based on the consequences involved with said action, which could either be good, bad or neutral. Most humans who have a perfectly functioning frontal lobe know that murder without justification (such as self defense) is wrong based on the consequences associated with the action itself. http://scitechdaily.com...http://science.education.nih.gov...http://www.livescience.com... If the ideology that there is an afterlife is the only thing stopping someone from murdering others, they would be advised to seek professional help immediately. This also applies to people who claim that "god wants them to murder someone" etc... These are signs of sociopathy, not morality. "What then is the best way to determine policy?" The best way to determine policy, while abiding the laws established in the United States Constitution is to remain neutral on the subject. A government authority must consider...1. How does this affect society and the people in it? 2. Who will be affected by the passing of this law and how? 3. Does this decision abide by Federal and State Constitution law? "If someone votes a Christian into office or a Muslim into office, then that's the decision of the body of voters. Under the representative system, this person is chosen to represent a body of people who share similar beliefs or desires as him or her." If the person elected into office is a devout religious person, they still have to abide by Constitutional law, if they cannot do that then they should not be in office. Sharing ideologies is one thing, oppressing others who do not share the same ideologies is discrimination. The LAW comes first, and their religion should remain a personal conviction not a public one. Doing otherwise is unconstitutional and is grounds for impeachment. It is not the job of elected officials to abuse political power through religious propaganda and self-promotion. "I'm going to argue under the premise that God doesn't exist. Now I argue moral relativism, which I define simply being that morality is relative to the individual. Essentially, since there is no point in anything we do, whatever one feels to be right is what's right."Not quite. Even if we argue under the premise that "God" does exist we must determine which out of the millions of Gods out of the thousand of religions and which of the thousands of denominations that god belongs to. Otherwise we would be in the same situation you previously described. In fact, we are already in that situation, Christians versus. Muslims, Muslims versus. Hindus, Christians versus. Jews etc... "For my final point, I would like to point out the logical contradiction in the policy. If we take away any religion, we are left with an atheist government. What's the problem with that? We are not establishing a religion, but we are establishing a belief system, which clearly contradicts the first amendment."The best way to regulate a religiously diverse society is to coexist and make laws that apply to a SECULAR society. The United Stated is a SECULAR society after all. Separating religion and government does not leave us with an "atheist government" nor does it contradict the first amendment. You, as a citizen, are free to practice your religion as you please but you are prohibited from establishing laws and policies that restrict others from certain rights and personal freedoms because it's against YOUR religion. In order for a government to be considered an "atheist government" there must be laws that restrict you of that right. Atheism and secularism are two different things. Also Atheism is not a belief system, because there is no specific set of beliefs that atheists follow, only a lack thereof. I await your response. |
17 | 4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide I shall now present my case. Case One - The problem with illegalized marijuana In many countries across the world we can see that marijuana usage (not just in a recreational sense) is illegal and anyone caught utilizing marijuana can be punished by local law. Now the nature of this law is mainly to prevent the abuse of a psychoactive drug which is shown to be addictive and harmful if used excessively and in the wrong conditions. However this often doesn't happen. If we look at the facts (see source one) the five most powerful drug cartels in the world operate in Mexico and Colombia. Two countries where the usage of recreational marijuana is illegal but unenforced by local law. This law paving way for drug cartels to take control presents a number of problems I will illustrate as follows - One - This has a rapid and dangerous butterfly effect on the governement and public service departments in the country. Mexico's cartel problem has paved way for massive drug rings to form. The money generated from drug rings allows for the financing of other criminal activities. Notably some of these examples include human trafficking, Bribery and corruption in the police force and the government (which allows them to cover up murders and gang-related attacks) and international smuggling. And these figures are on the rise. In Mexico crime rates have soared over the past three years. 28. 5% increase in violent robberies. 14. 3% increase in intentional homicide and 13. % increase in business robberies. The report has also attributed this increase due to the increasingly militarized tactics used by the perpertrators, A trait commonly associated for thugs under the payroll of drug lords. Two - The youth will be more exposed to drug usage more than if it was legalized. The simple fact is that drug dealers and drug lords do not care about the market they are supplying to. Their goal is simplistic and very focused. And that is to simply maximize profit and maintain discretion while doing so. It's very clear that in many developing countries across the world (notably India) enforcability of drug laws is extremely difficult and many members of the youth find themselves exposed to the influence of the widely accessible black market. Three - As hinted in problem one, The strength of the drug cartels in some countries will present incredible problems in another country. Because of the financing behind smuggling rings other countries that have also illegalized marijuana laws will find themselves at risk of massive influxes from the black market. This presents in itself a serious problem for the economy and social welfare. Almost all the negative externalties will be passed on and there will be widespread social chaos caused as a result for no tangible benefit for anyone other than a third party supplying illegal marijuana. Hence, By legalizing marijuana it allows a number of remedies to follow suit. It weakens the power of drug cartels and allows the government to have a stronger grip in tackling internal problems such as corruption and external problems such as the crime rate. While drug cartels specialize in the supplying of drugs other than recreational marijuana, That particular drug itself generates a bulk of the revenue for cartels as its widespread popularity and psychoactive effects are a huge selling point for the drug. Second, It allows the government to properly monitor the process in which legal recreational marijuana is distributed amongst the populace. This allows the government to prevent it from falling into the hands of the youth (as drug dealers will be considerably less inclined to partake in the business due to the fall in the profit margin) and better safeguard them from the psychoactive effects at a young age. Case Two - The similarities of alcohol and tobacco usage Now we're all well aware of the fact that recreational marijuana is only but one of the many things that alter behaviour and cause addiction upon consumption. Alcohol and tobacco are among these. The only difference being that alcohol and tobacco are legal in most parts of the world while marijuana is not. Not only that, But alcohol and tobacco have actually been seen as comparitvely more dangerous in case studies. One such case study (source three) has shown that alcohol and tobacco exposure was proven to be a higher risk factor than marijuana. One such example out of this is the fact that overconsumption of alcohol can potentially be fatal. Howver on the flipside, Overconsumption of marijuana is not known to be fatal on its own. The smoking of pure tobacco cigarettes on the other hand has been shown to be a greater factor to influence the growth of cancer cells and risk other diseaes catching on in comparison to marijuana. The hemp plant in itself has medical benefits. And smoking unfiltered marijuana is not known to cause any notable health effects that can compare to the effects brought on by tobacco usage. Thus we enter a legal loophole. Given that the effects of alcohol and tobacco are perceivably more harmful, It should be only natural that if it was so bad that marijuana had to be illegalized then alcohol and tobacco ought to follow suit. But given that's not the case and probably never will be in most countries, It should only be expected that marijuana is not made the exception simply because of its classification as a 'psychoactive drug'. Case Three - The economical benefits of legalization As most of us are already aware our governments love to tax us every day of our natural lives. They tax us on housing. They tax us for infrastructure development. They tax us to maintain the judicial system and public services. They tax us to finance their annual budget and to appreciate the currency. And of course, They also tax us on the products we buy. The money the government already makes from alcohol and tobacco taxes is quite notable to say the least. In the United States (see source four) $18 billion dollars was collected from tobacco taxes in 2015 and $16 billion was collected from alcohol taxes in that same year. This money goes into the annual budget. It goes into schools, Infrastructure, Hospitals, The works. And the reason is this possible is because the government monitors the sales of alcohol and tobacco through legal vendors. This does not happen with recreational marijuana due to the fact that it's illegal. And all the revenue generated from it goes into the black market and not into the economy at all. Hence the equation is simple. There are incredible economical benefits that can be derived from legalizing recreational marijuana but there are absolutely no economical benefits derived from keeping it illegal. If anything, We're spending more money simply trying to enforce the law by keeping it illegal which often does not work at all in stopping the spread of the drug. Instead of allowing the black market the power of selling the drug, Keep it in the hands of the government. At the bare minimum, The profit margin from legal sales will be incredibly useful in many other aspects of society. Summary In my argument I've laid forward three main principles to support my case that recreational marijuana should be legalized - One) Drug cartels profit immensely of illegalization laws which negatively impact society and the crime rate. Two) Alcohol and Tobacco (both legal utilities) have evidentely been showed to be a great deal more harmful on personal health and yet their status has not been changed simply because they are not labelled as 'drugs'. (This has mainly been the case why many medical practioners have suggested that marijuana isn't really a 'drug' because there are no known effects of usage that cause serious problems on health) Three) The economical benefits of a taxation scheme will not only help rack up revenue for the government to use on society but also help the government monitor the flow of marijuana sales in their own country. It's hard to argue that it would rather be better that we leave the hands of the drug to be sold by black market forces than the government. With that, I hand my floor open to my opponent to present his own case. Thank you. Sources - . https://deserthopetreatment. Com/drug-abuse/cartels/ . https://www. Garda. Com/crisis24/news-alerts/113791/mexico-gang-violence-escalates-in-mexico-city . https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/ . https://www. Urban. Org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/cigarette-and-alcohol-taxes |
3 | 41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00006-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Carbon emissions trading Global C02 trading not like US sulfur trading |
2 | a5dc84d2-2019-04-18T16:21:24Z-00005-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Nuclear energy is clean and safe To call Nuclear power as it exists today,safe is to ignore all real world implications of its product and Bi-product. Thank you for hosting this debate pro, I hope hope you are prepared to defend your assertion fully. |
49 | a781de02-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00017-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Minimum sentences increase the effectiveness of incapacitation. Incapacitation is one of the 4 basic reasons for punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences keep criminals out of society for a longer period of time than they might otherwise be in jail, thereby reducing their window of opportunity to commit crime. The criminal justice system is obligated to refrain from cruel or unusual punishment, but its main purpose is to protect society from law-breakers through various means of preventing and punishing illegal activity. Mandatory minimum sentences should be proportionate to the severity of the crime, thus satisfying the requirement of humane punishment. Thus mandatory minimum sentencing is a just method of protecting the public. |
37 | 8ba27812-2019-04-18T12:55:27Z-00004-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | The cure for cancer has already been found. Seeing as the debate structure prohibits rebuttals in this round, I will refrain from doing so and will simply outline various current methods of cancer treatment and why they cannot be referred to as a "cure for cancer", thus fulfilling any possible BoP I may have. The methods I will cover will be chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and of course, immunotherapy. However, to do so we must first understand precisely what cancer is and what it is caused by, as well as define the word cure. Definitions Cure: a complete or permanent solution or remedy - Merriam Webster Unless my opponent disagrees with this definition, a cure will be defined as such. Cancer[1] Every human being consists of trillions of cells. These cells must divide and grow in order to maintain life. As cells become damaged or grow old, these new cells must take their place, while the old and damaged cells die off. These divisions are done in an orderly and safe manner as is dictated by your genes. However, from poor genes and mutations in one's DNA, cancer arises and it does not follow the aforementioned process. As Cancer. gov states: "When cancer develops, however, this orderly process breaks down. As cells become more and more abnormal, old or damaged cells survive when they should die, and new cells form when they are not needed. These extra cells can divide without stopping and may form growths called tumors. " Now that we understand what cancer is and its sources, we may look into the effectivity of current cancer treatment methods. Chemotherapy Chemotherapy employs the use of cytotoxic drugs to stop the division of cells. This is done through various means such as ensuring that cells do not use the nutrients needed in order to further multiply,or by interfering with the genotype (genetic makeup) of the DNA and therefore stopping the abnormal division of cells. This method is most effective on cancers that divide rapidly[2]. However, chemotherapy cannot be referred to as a "cure for cancer" as it is not always effective among patients, therefore being incomplete. For example, many leukemia patients do not find success with chemotherapy. After chemotherapy stops the rapid cell division within these patients, the patients go into remission. However, a renewed cancer arises from cells that do not divide as rapidly and are therefore resistant to chemotherapy[3]. As this treatment method does not result in "a complete or permanent solution or remedy", it cannot be described as the cure for cancer. Ionizing Radiation Radiation, or more specifically ionizing radiation, creates ions by taking the electrons of atoms and molecules within the body. Doing so either damages the DNA of these cancerous cells directly, or creates highly reactive molecules called free radicals, which damage the DNA of these cells [4][5]. However, there are various cancers that are resistant to radiation. Proof of this can be seen in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which states: "Ionizing radiation treats many cancers effectively, but in some patients a few tumor cells become resistant to radiation and go on to cause relapse and metastasis. " [6] As a result, ionizing radiation clearly isn't a complete or permanent solution to various types of cancers, and can therefore not be referred to as a "cure for cancer" Surgery As you likely surmised, surgery physically removes the tumour by literally cutting it out of the body. Yet, as is commonly known, it is rather ineffective among the later stages of cancer as the cancer has spread to other parts of the body [7]. Furthermore, hematological cancers such as leukemia are not solid and can therefore not be cut out in these conventional means [8]. Also, surgery can leave behind some cancer cells which results in the cancer returning to the patient [9]. As shown, surgery like the other methods of treatment, is neither permanent nor complete, and cannot therefore be described as a cure for cancer. Immunotherapy Finally we come to immunotherapy, which will likely be a central aspect of this debate. We cannot make presumptions on immunotherapy. We must know exactly what it is in order to conclude its effectivity against cancer. I will attempt to do so in the following paragraphs. The immune system naturally protects one from various cancerous cells[10]. However, malignant tumours only form when your immune system is either unaware of the cancer or dampened from the cancer itself [11] . Cancerous cells have found a number of ways to evade our immune system. One manner of doing so would be their use of PD-L1, a protein that activates a pathway which effectively suppresses the immune system and its response, allowing the cancer to thrive [12]. This allows the cancer to effectively evade one's immune system. Immunotherapy works by using drugs such as Keytruda (pembrolizumab), which effectively blocks these pathways in order to allow the immune system to fight cancerous cells [13]. However, not only are these methods restrictive to only a few types of cancer, they are ineffective among a majority of patients. To understand this discrepancy, we must understand how our immune system fights these cancerous cells. Some tumour cells exhibit microscopic molecules that identify the cell as foreign and therefore trigger an immune response, referred to as neoantigens[14]. Since this has been identified as foreign, your immune system responds accordingly and seeks to remove these substances (at which point using the PD-L1 protein allows the cancer to survive). However, among a majority of patients, there are either not a sufficient number of neoantigens or the cells which exhibit these neoantigens are not sufficiently distributed throughout the tumour to invoke the necessary response by the immune system [15]. Therefore, even by removing these blockades that the cancer has used, your immune system cannot respond and the cancer continues to survive. For this reason, immunotherapy is not a "a complete or permanent solution or remedy", and cannot therefore be labeled as a cure for cancer. Conclusion As has been showed, the 4 main treatments of cancer have not matched with the definition stated for a cure. These treatments are either insufficiently complete (they are specific to only a select group), or are insufficiently permanent (they do not treat all patients indefinitely). Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that the cure for cancer has not currently been found. A majority of this may have seemed impertinent considering the case my opponent is trying to make,but the rules dictated that I could not directly respond. As a result, I could only try to cover all my bases, even those that seemed impertinent. I expect a riveting discourse as this debate continues. Thank you. Sources 1. . http://www.cancer.gov... 2. . http://patient.info... 3. . http://www.redorbit.com... 4. . http://www.cancer.org... 5. . http://www.cancer.gov... 6. . http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org... 7. . http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... 8. . http://www.cancer.gov... 9. . http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... 10. . http://www.cancer.ca... 11. . http://www.breastcancer.org... 12. . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13. . https://www.keytruda.com... 14. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 15. . https://www.statnews.com... |
49 | e98fe508-2019-04-18T14:13:32Z-00005-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Should immigrants in the United States illegally who are parents of us minors be deported Border Terror DA Links Border Border surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorism Wilson 2/26 (Reid Wilson, covers national politics and Congress for The Washington Post and author of Read In, The Post"s morning tip sheet on politics. He's a former editor in chief of The Hotline, the premier tip sheet on campaigns and elections and a graduate of The George Washington University, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border", February 26 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com...) A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. [Drone strike kills senior al-Shabab official in Somalia] Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Border surveillance is k2 preventing terrorism Smarick et al. 12 (Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. 11/12 "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants" START, http://www.start.umd.edu... CCC) An essential step in this project was determining the frequency and dynamics of border crossings by individuals who conducted or who wanted to conduct terrorism-related activities in the United States. Towards that goal, the project built upon the existing holdings of the American Terrorism Study (ATS) in this effort. The ATS, housed at the University of Arkansas, catalogs and systematically codes information on more than 300 Federal court cases involving Federal terrorist charges since 1980 and, following a review of other possible resources, proved to be the most useful starting point for compiling open-source, quantitative data on terrorist border crossings. Since 1989, the American Terrorism Study (ATS) has received lists of court cases and associated indictees that resulted from an official FBI terrorism investigation spanning 1980 through 2004. Housed at the University of Arkansas" Terrorism Research Center in Fulbright College (TRC), the ATS now includes almost 400 cases from the FBI lists. Of these, approximately 75% of cases have complete court documentation, and almost all of those collected have been coded into the ATS database, while the ATS team continues to track new cases by collecting, reviewing, and coding new and additional court documentation. The ATS includes terrorism incidents and attacks, thwarted or planned terrorism incidents sometimes referred to as preventions, material support cases for terrorism, general terrorism conspiracies, and in some cases, immigration fraud; the common denominator among all ATS events is that the FBI investigated these events as terrorism-related incidents. During preliminary research for this project, court records from 378 terrorism cases found in the ATS dataset were reviewed for information on potential border crossing events related to terrorism cases. The documents for each court case were manually reviewed by researchers to determine whether the collected records reported that one of the defendants or accomplices in a case crossed a U.S. border at some point. Thirty-eight percent of the reviewed cases"145 cases"from 1980 through 2004 were found to either have: " direct mention of a border crossing in the court documents, or " a link to a terrorism incident that involved a known border crossing, either before or after an incident. After compiling this list of court cases for inclusion, each identified court case was then linked to a criminal incident involving terrorism charges. Initial reviews revealed a connection to a border-crossing event in a total of 58 successful terrorist attacks, 51 prevented or thwarted attacks, 26 material support cases, 33 immigration fraud incidents, and 4 general terrorism conspiracies. Additional reviews of relevant information on indictees and their activities resulted in a reduction in the number of successful terrorist attacks associated with these individuals to a total of 43. Appendix 2 provides more details on the data collection process and how a reliable collection methodology was established to create the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing Dataset (USTBC), using the ATS as a starting point. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 12 Systematic evaluation by the research team revealed that the American Terrorism Study is a reliable and useful resource for identifying individuals associated with terrorist attacks or terrorist criminal cases (such as conspiracies) and for determining which of these individuals crossed U.S. borders in advance of or in the wake of their terrorism-related behavior. This is largely because the ATS is based on court documents, which among sources of data on terrorism are the most likely to reference relevant border crossing activity. The Global Terrorism Database, which is based primarily on media sources, can serve a supporting role in this research, but the ATS is the primary source allowing for construction of a new, relational database on U.S. Terrorist Border Crossings (USTBCs). That being said, it is important to recognize that the ATS is not a perfect data source. As noted above, its contents are limited to individuals and information related to court cases in which one or more defendant was charged with Federal terrorism charges. As such, the contents of ATS clearly represent a subset of all terrorists or attempted terrorists in the United States, as it systematically omits those who: " were never arrested or faced any charges, " were charged with offenses not directly related to terrorism, " were charged at the non-Federal level, or " were engaged in dangerous activity that does not meet the FBI"s definition of a terrorism case. Throughout this project, the research team was careful to respect the limitations of this data collection and to draw conclusions that recognize that the border crossing events included in this project likely represent a non-representative subset of all border crossing attempts by terrorists or intended terrorists. Despite these limitations, though, the data that was built upon the baseline of ATS provides important insights into the nexus between border crossings and terrorism. The U.S. Terrorism Border Crossing Dataset The final versions of the codebooks used to develop the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing (USTBC) data collection are presented in Appendix 3. Based upon knowledge gained from pilot efforts (as discussed above and in Appendix 2), the project resulted in two codebooks"one focused on dynamics of a bordercrossing event involving someone associated with a Federal terrorism court case, and another focused on the characteristics of the individuals associated with Federal charges who were involved in the bordercrossing event. Data collection for the USTBC lasted for approximately one year and was primarily conducted by research assistants at the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.3 The resultant data that comprise the USTBC are available in Appendix 4. Table 4 provides a snapshot summary of these data, which include detailed information on the location of an attempted crossing, the timing of a crossing relative to attempted or actual terrorist activity, the origin or destination of an attempted crossing, and more. The data also include specific information on border crossers, including their citizenship status, their criminal history, and key demographics (including level of education, marital status, etc.) Appendix 5 provides descriptive statistics from the border-crossing and border-crosser data. 3 Special thanks to Kim Murray and Summer Jackson of the Terrorism Research Center for their efforts in combing through the courtcase material and assembling these data for the USTBC. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 13 Border Crossings Identified in USTBC Attempts to Enter the United States Of the 221 border crossings identified in this project as involving individuals who were indicted by the U.S. government in terrorism-related cases, the majority (129 crossings) involved an individual attempting to enter the United States, while the remainder (92 crossings) involved an individual attempting to exit the United States. Eighty-seven percent of the attempted border crossings were successful, rather than being thwarted by law enforcement or foiled by some other events or developments. Additional discussion on the nature of successful crossings versus those who were apprehended at the border is presented below. Among those attempts to enter the United States, the most frequent origin for these crossing efforts was Canada.4 But, as Figure 2 illustrates, such attempted entries originated from all corners of the world. US Border Patrol proves that surveillance is key to anti-terror efforts Stamey 14 (Barcley; DOMESTIC AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY: SHOULD AMERICANS FEAR THE EYE IN THE SKY; March 2014) The leading national agency currently using drones to combat a wide range of domestic threats is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. With its fleet of seven MQ-1 Predators and three MQ-1 Guardians"Predators modified for marine surveillance"CBP 26 is at the forefront of large-scale drone operations. With an annual budget exceeding $11 billion, CBP is well equipped for protecting our national security while combating potential terrorist threats.55 But how efficiently are those funds being used, and what is meant by effectiveness? According to Merriam-Webster, effectiveness is "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect or result."56 Ultimately, that desired result is safe international borders. Accomplishing this result involves the apprehension of illegal immigrants, interdiction of illicit drugs, and prevention of terrorist infiltration, which CBP does quite well, but with respect to UAS, effectiveness must be viewed on a much broader scale. This section takes into account the size of CBP, its operational budget, and couples it with published results. According to CBP, the primary mission of drone use is "anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal cross-border activity."57 CBP uses its Predators and Reapers to accomplish this goal through human detection and tracking, surface asset coordination, and threat detection through IR sensors in multiple scenarios. Previously mentioned sensor suites allow the Predator to detect movement along the border, identify actual personnel numbers, and track the location of threats all while being unobserved to the individuals on the ground. With their long loiter times, Predators allow officials to monitor gaps along the border while maximizing the efforts of ground personnel in actual interdiction missions. After witnessing the functionality of actual Predator operations in Afghanistan, this author realizes the value in having high definition video sensors overhead during dangerous operations. This type of technology certainly has a place in homeland security missions, and future capabilities will provide a clear advantage to U.S. personnel in combating border security. This force multiplier mindset is one CBP has adopted and publicizes regularly to justify the success of its drone program. Long loiter times, remote area access, and flexibility during National Special Security Events are common claims. Border security stops terrorism Zuckerman, Bucci, Carafano, no date (Jessica Zuckerman, Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policyj and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, 13, 7-22-2013, "60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org... CCC) Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser"April 2013. Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser were arrested in April 2013 for attempting to carry out an attack on a Via Railway train travelling from Canada to the U.S. The attack, authorities claimed, was supported by an al-Qaeda element in Iran, although there is currently no evidence that it was state-sponsored.[205] The exact route of the targeted train has not been identified, and Iranian authorities vehemently deny that al-Qaeda is operating within Iranian borders. Esseghaier and Jaser have been charged in Canada with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group, participating in a terrorist group, and conspiring to interfere with transportation facilities for the benefit of a terrorist group. Esseghaier has also been charged with participating in a terrorist group, and both men face up to life in prison.[206] The two men are awaiting trial. Chiheb Esseghaier wants to represent himself, basing his defense on the Quran instead of on the Canadian criminal code, which has caused delays in the proceedings.[207] Continued use of border surveillance technology is crucial to the detection of and response to threats on the border Haddal 10, Specialist in Immigration Policy, 8/11/10 (Chad C. Haddal, Congressional Research Service report, August 11, 2010, "Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol" https://www.fas.org..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) Perhaps the most important technology used by the Border Patrol are the surveillance assets currently in place at the border. The program has gone through several iterations and name changes. Originally known as the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS), the program"s name was changed to the America"s Shield Initiative (ASI) in FY2005. DHS subsequently folded ASI into the Secure Border Initative (SBI) and renamed the program SBInet Technology (SBInet). Once it is beyond the pilot phase, SBInet will, according to DHS, develop and install "new integrated technology solutions to provide enhanced detection, tracking, response, and situational awareness capabilities."19 The other program under SBI is the SBI Tactical Infrastructure program, which, according to DHS, "develops and installs physical components designed to consistently slow, delay, and be an obstacle to illegal cross-border activity."20 In the late 1990s, the Border Patrol began deploying a network of Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems (i.e., camera systems), underground sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-faceted network designed to detect illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. This Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) attempted to ensure seamless coverage of the border by combining the feeds from multiple color, thermal, and infrared cameras mounted on different structures into one remote-controlled system with information generated by sensors (including seismic, magnetic, and thermal detectors). When a sensor is tripped, an alarm is sent to a central communications control room at a USBP station or sector headquarters. USBP personnel monitoring the control room screens use the ICAD system to re-position RVS cameras towards the location where the sensor alarm was tripped (although some camera positions are fixed and cannot be panned). Control room personnel then alert field agents to the intrusion and coordinate the response. Information gathered from surveillance activities is key to any effective response to terrorist threats along the border Fisher 12, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief, 5/8/12 (Michael, Department of Homeland Security, "Written testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security hearing titled "Measuring Border Security: U.S. Border Patrol"s New Strategic Plan and the Path Forward."" http://www.dhs.gov...; accessed 7/15/15 JH@ DDI) Information gathered from reconnaissance, community engagement, sign-cutting and technology together provide situational awareness and intelligence and helps us to best understand and assess the threats we face along our borders. Information and intelligence will empower Border Patrol leadership and front line agents to get ahead of the threat, be predictive and proactive. Integration denotes CBP corporate planning and execution of border security operations, while leveraging partnerships with other federal, state, local, tribal, and international organizations. Integration of effort with these organizations will ensure we bring all available capabilities and tools to bear in addressing threats. Lastly, through rapid response, we will deploy capabilities efficiently and effectively to meet and mitigate the risks we confront. Put simply, rapid response means the Border Patrol and its partners can quickly and appropriately respond to changing threats. Goal 1: Secure America"s Borders The 2012 Strategic Plan has two interrelated and interdependent goals. In the first goal, the Border Patrol will work with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners to secure America"s borders using information, integration and rapid response in a risk-based manner. There are five objectives within this goal: Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States Manage Risk Disrupt and Degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) Whole-of-Government Approach Increase Community Engagement I. Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States The current risk environment is characterized by constantly evolving threats that are both complex and varying, and the Border Patrol must strategically apply intelligence to ensure that operations are focused and targeted against the greatest threats. The Border Patrol"s ability to prevent and disrupt such threats is enhanced through increased information sharing and operational integration, planning, and execution with our domestic and foreign law enforcement partners. Integration with our federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners" intelligence and enforcement capabilities into the planning and execution of CBP operations is critical to our ability to secure our nation"s borders. The use of necessary surveillance technology is key to the identification and prevention of terrorist threats on the border Office of Border Patrol 4, September 2004 (THE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, "National Border Patrol Strategy" http://www.au.af.mil..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) The Border Patrol currently uses a mix of agents, information, and technology to control the border. The Border Patrol"s ability to establish situational awareness, monitor, detect, respond to, and identify potential terrorists, instruments of terrorism, and criminals relies heavily on interdiction and deterrence-based technology. Having the necessary technology to support the Border Patrol priority and traditional missions cannot be overstated. In the future, there must be continued assessment, development, and deployment of the appropriate mix of personnel, technology, and information to gain, maintain, and expand coverage of the border and ensure that resources are deployed in a cost-effective, efficient fashion. Technology which enhances operational awareness and effectiveness includes camera systems for day/ night/infrared work, biometric systems such as IDENT/IAFIS, processing systems like ENFORCE, sensoring platforms, large-scale gamma X-rays, and aerial platforms, and other systems. Technologies requiring modernization include wireless and tactical communications and computer processing capabilities. Coordination between Border Patrol and inspectional personnel at the ports of entry ensures the most efficient use of trained personnel and technology. In the future, the Border Patrol will take advantage of the targeting and selectivity tools made available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the National Targeting Center. The continued testing, evaluation, acquisition, and deployment of appropriate border enforcement technologies will be pursued vigorously so that the maximum force-multiplier effect is achieved in support of both the priority and traditional missions. Any gap in security on the border allows international terror groups to come into the United States Wilson 15 [Reid Wilson, 2/26/15, covers national politics for the Washington Post, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com... jf] A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Maximized surveillance on the border is key to stopping terrorism Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., jf] One of the unexpected results of our study was recognition of the importance of networked intelligence in elaborating objectives for and measuring effectiveness of border security.11 This came about for many reasons. First, all of the focus missions are best understood in national terms: Border security contributes significantly to several high-level national objectives, but results depend sensitively on interactions with and the performance of other federal and local agencies, as well as economic and demographic conditions outside of DHS"s control. Second, national-level effectiveness depends not just on individual component or agency effectiveness but also on components" ability to share information and work collaboratively, i.e., to network. This is perhaps most obvious with respect to preventing terrorism, in that individuals might enter the country who are vaguely suspicious but who cannot reasonably be arrested at the border. Responsibility for follow-up then transfers to, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, the FBI"s ability to follow up"either immediately or when further information emerges"might depend critically on information collected and effectively transferred by border agencies to the FBI. The word "effectively" is key because all agencies are deluged with data. The 9/11 Commission"s report dramatized the consequences of ineffectiveness: It is not that information for apprehending the perpetrators did not exist, but rather that the dots were not connected and the relevant agencies did not cooperate well (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004). Third, national-level law enforcement also depends on the effectiveness of the justice system, including the ability to convict and punish. That, in turn, often depends on authorities being able to construct an extensive, fact-based story of criminal behavior from which, cumulatively, guilt can reasonably be inferred by a jury. Fourth, the nature and quality of information collected by border-security components, the consistency with which it is collected, and the effectiveness with which the data are both transferred to national databases and"where appropriate"highlighted in cross-agency actions, are leverage points for improved national-level effectiveness, especially in relation to terrorism- or drug-related functions. Border-security eff orts sometimes will query detected travelers against data sets of known or suspected terrorists or criminals. This is especially relevant at ports of entry, ports of egress in some modes, and in cases in which border enforcement detains an illegal crosser. In other settings, border-enforcement agencies collect as much information as possible on individuals, their conveyances, license plates, accounts, and other records of persons detained for crossing illegally but for whom no prior records exist. The same is true in the maritime regions when individuals are arrested for illegal drug smuggling or illegal migrant smuggling. The collected information can become future tactical intelligence (and used in prosecutions) if the detained person becomes involved in criminal or terrorist functions at a later date. Discussions with component agencies indicate that this is an important capability to measure. Technologically, it is even possible to tag individuals so that subsequent surveillance within the United States (or another country) is possible.12 Border surveillance prevents terrorist groups from attempting attacks Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., pg 19, jf] The principal contributions that border security makes to counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on flows into the country of people or materials. These contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and orchestrated. Through a number of planning efforts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events (DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security programs contribute to terrorism security efforts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). This decomposition of attack planning provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security eff orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative, and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when border-security measures are perceived to be effective, terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all. This could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture. For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of fingerprints as part of the normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. This effort makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more difficult for terrorists to evade border-security efforts. Drones Drones are critical to combat bio- and chemical-terror Koerner 2015 (Matthew R, Duke University School of Law, J.D. expected 2015, "DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: REDEFINING EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY", 64 Duke L.J. 1129) Senator Dianne Feinstein, a staunch advocate of governmental surveillance n1 and Chairman of the 113th Congress's Senate Intelligence Committee, n2 recently found herself, rather ironically, as the target of surveillance. n3 One day at her home, Senator Feinstein walked to the window to check on a protest that was taking place outside. n4 Much to her surprise, a small drone n5 hovered on the other side of the window, only inches away, spying on her. n6 The drone immediately flew away. n7 Senator Feinstein's experience is just one example of drones being used for surveillance within the United States. But her story and others like it n8 have sparked significant controversy over the use of drones for domestic surveillance, which falls within a broader debate [*1131] on privacy and governmental surveillance programs. n9 Advocates of robust federal surveillance policies champion governmental surveillance as the only way to prevent terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States. n10 President Barack Obama defended these surveillance programs as ""modest encroachments on privacy'" that "strike the "right balance' between national security and civil liberties." n11 In comparison, privacy advocates envision these surveillance programs leading to a dystopian, totalitarian government watching over its citizenry - undetected but omnipresent. n12 References to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four n13 abound. n14 [*1132] Apart from the surrounding privacy-concerns debate, drones currently provide many practical benefits and their projected applications seem limitless. n15 Based on their obvious advantage of being unmanned, drones have the capability to conduct missions previously considered too risky, dangerous, or impracticable. These applications are also provided at continuously decreasing costs and with the latest technological sophistication, such as the capability to see through physical obstructions, to detect various chemical and biological agents in the air, to recognize human faces and license plates, and to fly in strategic, coordinated formations. n16 Drones provide effective surveillance of the borders Spagat 2014 (Elliot, "Drones replacing officers in Mexican border surveillance", Nov 13; www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20141113/drones-replacing-officers-in-mexican-border-surveillance) The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border. It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled " to surpass 18,000 " and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles. Under the new approach, Predator B aerial drones, used in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials with direct knowledge of the effort said on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts, who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes " perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or perhaps a drug-laden Hummer, they said. About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, while the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity " footprints, broken twigs, trash. About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as "change detection," since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol"s parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there"s not traffic, whether it"s tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." If the video shows the terrain unchanged, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher calls it "proving the negative" " showing there isn"t anything illegal happening there and therefore no need for agents and fences. The strategy was launched without fanfare and is being expanded as President Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order by the end of this year to reduce deportations and enhance border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, applauded the approach while noting surveillance gaps still remain. "We can no longer focus only on static defenses such as fences and fixed (camera) towers," he said. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who coauthored legislation last year to add 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 350 miles of fencing to the southwest border, said, "If there are better ways of ensuring the border is secure, I am certainly open to considering those options." Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and from between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The first step is for Border Patrol sector chiefs to identify areas least likely to attract smugglers, typically those far from towns and roads. Analysts scour the drone videos at operations centers in Riverside; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Sierra Vista. After an initial survey, the drones return within a week for another sweep. Privacy advocates have raised concerns about drones since Customs and Border Protection introduced them in 2006, saying there is potential to monitor innocent people under no suspicion. Lothar Eckardt, the agency"s executive director of national air security operations, said law-abiding people shouldn"t worry and that cameras are unable to capture details like license plate numbers and faces on the ground. He looked on one September morning as a drone taxied down a runway in Sierra Vista, lifted off with a muffled buzz and disappeared over a rocky mountain range into a blue Arizona sky. About a dozen computer screens line the wall of their trailer, showing the weather, maps and real-time images of the ground below. Eckardt said there is "no silver bullet" for addressing border security but that using drones in highly remote areas is part of the overall effort. If there"s nothing there, he said, "let"s not waste the manpower here. Let"s focus our efforts someplace else, where they"re needed." Drones are necessary to protect the border Ingram 2013 (David, How drones are used for domestic surveillance, Jun 19, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0619/How-drones-are-used-for-domestic-surveillance) The U.S. government has made no secret of its use of drones to monitor the United States border with Mexico. The Obama administration has been defending its surveillance tactics since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden released secret documents revealing a massive database of daily telephone records, as well as coordination between the NSA and social media companies. The programs are designed to target militants outside the United States who are suspected of planning attacks, but they inevitably gather some data on Americans, U.S. officials said. In a May speech, Obama defended the use of armed drones abroad but said the United States should never deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. The Justice Department had disclosed that two domestic law enforcement agencies use unmanned aircraft systems, according to a department statement sent to the Judiciary Committee and released on Wednesday by Grassley's office. The two are the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday asking why the Justice Department did not earlier mention the FBI's use of drones. At Wednesday's hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said she was concerned about the privacy implications of drone surveillance. "The greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today," Feinstein said. Mueller reiterated that drone use is rare. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs," he said. Mueller is due to retire when his term expires in September. Border drones effectively and efficiently monitor the border RussiaTimes "14 (November 13, 2014, http://rt.com..., 7-3-15) Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States" border with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in desolated areas the government agents can"t realistically patrol. The unmanned aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy R10; known internally as "change detection" R10; since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence R10; like footprints, broken twigs, trash R10; of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights, with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The program is expected to expand the the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "It"s not a comprehensive immigration solution or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people R10; plus maintenance staff R10; to operate, coming out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPB"s Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. "Instead, the question is: Why can"t we have more of them in my district?" Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the US-Mexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in the first half of the year. "Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones," McNeal said. "This is the kind of crisis where, if you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress." The agency"s "unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations," a CBP official told Nextgov. The president"s request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of agency drones to only nine. Domestic drones k2 solve for terrorism Bauer 13 (Max Bauer, of ACLU of Massachusetts 9-11-2013, "Domestic Drone Surveillance Usage: Threats and Opportunities for Regulation," https://privacysos.org... CCC) Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, are an emerging and rapidly-expanding development in domestic surveillance technology. [4] On Valentine"s Day 2012, President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, legislation authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop regulations to facilitate the growing usage of drones in domestic airspace. [5] Drones are best known for their use in military operations [6] including the use of weaponized drones for targeted killing. But drones have been used for domestic surveillance purposes for years [7] and their usage is expected to grow exponentially. [8] The FAA has issued 1,428 drone operator permits since 2007 (as of mid-February) and predicts there will be 10,000 drones deployed within the next five years. [9] A public information request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed that numerous universities and law enforcement agencies have been approved to use drones by the FAA. [10] Of course, the widespread use of drones for domestic surveillance raises serious privacy concerns. [11] Drones can be outfitted with high definition [12] and infrared cameras, [13] and even license plate readers. [14] Drones "present unique threats to privacy," in the words of one privacy advocate. [15] Why? They are smaller " potentially insect-sized, [16] can fly longer " perhaps soon in perpetuity, [17] and are not bound by the historical, practical check on law enforcement excesses we've had as a result of limited police resources. [18] In a seminal 1890 law review article aptly-titled The Right to Privacy, future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized that "instantaneous photographs" have invaded the secret precincts of private and domestic life"Of the desirability " indeed of the necessity " of some such protection there can, it is believed, be no doubt." [19] Brandeis and his co-author Samuel Warren were ahead of their time when they wrote that article but even they couldn"t foresee anything like the domestic surveillance schemes that have arisen over a century later. Drones Used in Massachusetts and Response to Boston Marathon Bombings. Late in 2012, the Boston Globe reported that a SWAT team in Massachusetts had filed an application with the FAA for a drone. [20] As of April 2013, there were no police drones yet in Massachusetts but Waltham-based defense contractor Raytheon was flying many of them in testing capacities. [21] Surveillance and war contracting companies hope to expand their market from military to domestic law enforcement. [22] Following the explosion of two bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, parts of the city shut down as the search for a suspect continued, prompting Ron Paul to write: "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself." [23] Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told the public shortly afterward that he seeks more surveillance cameras (there are already hundreds) in downtown Boston. [24] And further, he said, he wants to have drone surveillance for next year"s marathon. [25] Drones K2 stop terrorism Byman, 13 (Daniel L. Byman, Director of research at Center for Middle East Policy, 8/2013, http://www.brookings.edu... CCC) The Obama administration relies on drones for one simple reason: they work. According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban"top figures who are not easily replaced. In 2010, Osama bin Laden warned his chief aide, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who was later killed by a drone strike in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in 2011, that when experienced leaders are eliminated, the result is "the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced as the former leaders" and who are prone to errors and miscalculations. And drones also hurt terrorist organizations when they eliminate operatives who are lower down on the food chain but who boast special skills: passport forgers, bomb makers, recruiters, and fundraisers. Drones have also undercut terrorists" ability to communicate and to train new recruits. In order to avoid attracting drones, al Qaeda and Taliban operatives try to avoid using electronic devices or gathering in large numbers. A tip sheet found among jihadists in Mali advised militants to "maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts" and "avoid gathering in open areas." Leaders, however, cannot give orders when they are incommunicado, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible when a drone strike could wipe out an entire group of new recruits. Drones have turned al Qaeda"s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders Drones take out terrorist leaders Al-Haj, 15 (Ahmed Al-Haj, writer for the Stars & Stripes and AP the big story, 7/10/2015, http://www.stripes.com... CCC) Yemeni security and military officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike killed four al-Qaida members travelling by car in the coastal city of Mukalla. The officials say the airstrike took place on Friday night in Mukalla, the capital of Yemen's sprawling eastern Hadramawt province. The explosion was heard in some parts of the city. Al-Qaida's Yemen branch, considered to be the most dangerous offshoot of the terror network, has made gains in the province and captured Mukalla earlier this year. The officials say at least five other militants were wounded in the airstrike. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to reporters. Al-Qaida has profited from the turmoil that has engulfed Yemen, and U.S. drones have continued to target top al-Qaida leaders there. AT Retaliation AT: Retaliation Ayson flips neg- terrorism is not an existential risk Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, "After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects," Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33.7, Francis & Taylor) A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the @257;rst place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in signi@257;cant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-@257;rst century might bring would fade into insigni@257;cance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. No US nuclear retaliation Neely 13 (Meggaen Neely, The George Washington University Master of Arts (M.A.), Security Policy Studies 2012"2014 (expected) Baylor University Master of Arts (M.A.), Public Policy and Administration 2010"2012, Richard D. Huff Distinguished Masters Student in Political Science (2012) Baylor University Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science and Government, Research Assistant, Elliott School at George Washington University, Research Intern, Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Communications Intern at Federation of American Scientists Graduate Assistant at Department of Political Science, Baylor University, "Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism", March 21, 2013, http://csis.org...) Because of the difficulty of deterring transnational actors, many deterrence advocates shift the focus to deterring state sponsors of nuclear terrorism. The argument applies whether or not the state intended to assist nuclear terrorists. If terrorists obtain a nuclear weapon or fissile materials from a state, the theory goes, then the United States will track the weapon"s country of origin using nuclear forensics, and retaliate against that country. If this is U.S. policy, advocates predict that states will be deterred from assisting terrorists with their nuclear ambitions. Yet, let"s think about the series of events that would play out if a terrorist organization detonated a weapon in the United States. Let"s assume forensics confirmed the weapon"s origin, and let"s assume, for argument"s sake, that country was Pakistan. Would the United States then retaliate with a nuclear strike? If a nuclear attack occurs within the next four years (a reasonable length of time for such predictions concerning current international and domestic politics), it seems unlikely. Why? First, there"s the problem of time. Though nuclear forensics is useful, it takes time to analyze the data and determine the country of origin. Any justified response upon a state sponsor would not be swift. Second, even if the United States proved the country of origin, it would then be difficult to determine that Pakistan willingly and intentionally sponsored nuclear terrorism. If Pakistan did, then nuclear retaliation might be justified. However, if Pakistan did not, nuclear retaliation over unsecured nuclear materials would be a disproportionate response and potentially further detrimental. Should the United States launch a nuclear strike at Pakistan, Islamabad could see this as an initial hostility by the United States, and respond adversely. An obvious choice, given current tensions in South Asia, is for Pakistan to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear launch on its territory by initiating conflict with India, which could turn nuclear and increase the exchanges of nuclear weapons. Hence, it seems more likely that, after the international outrage at a terrorist group"s nuclear detonation, the United States would attempt to stop the bleeding without a nuclear strike. Instead, some choices might include deploying forces to track down those that supported the suicide terrorists that detonated the weapon, pressuring Pakistan to exert its sovereignty over fringe regions such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and increasing the number of drone strikes in Waziristan. Given the initial attack, such measures might understandably seem more of a concession than the retaliation called for by deterrence models, even more so by the American public. This is not an argument against those technologies associated with nuclear forensics. The United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue their development and distribution. Instead, I question the presumed American response that is promulgated by deterrence advocates. By looking at possibilities for a U.S. response to nuclear terrorism, a situation in which we assume that deterrence has failed, we cast doubt on the likelihood of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike and hence cast doubt on the credibility of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike as a deterrent. Would the United States launch a nuclear weapon now unless it was sure of another state"s intentional sponsorship of nuclear terrorism? Any reasonable doubt of sponsorship might stay the United States" nuclear hand. Given the opaqueness of countries" intentions, reasonable doubt over sponsorship is inevitable to some degree. Other countries are probably aware of U.S. hesitance in response to terrorists" use of nuclear weapons. If this thought experiment is true, then the communication required for credible retaliatory strikes under deterrence of nuclear terrorism is missing. The threat of a nuclear retaliation is exaggerated " even stolen material can be easily traced Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) This gloomy picture overstates the difficulty of determining the source of stolen material after a nuclear terrorist attack. In the wake of a detonation, the possibility of stolen fissile material complicates the task of attribution"but only marginally. At the end of the Cold War, several countries"particularly in the former Soviet Union"confronted major nuclear security problems, but great progress has been made since then.40 Although no country has perfect nuclear security, today the greatest concerns surround just five countries: Belarus, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa.41 In addition, not all of those states are equally worrisome as potential sources of nuclear theft. Substantial concerns exist about the security of fissile materials in Pakistan and Russia (the latter if simply because of the large size of its stockpile), but Belarus, Japan, and South Africa would likely be quickly and easily ruled out as the source of stolen fissile material. Belarus has a relatively small stockpile of fissile material"approximately 100 kilograms of HEU42"so in the wake of a nuclear terrorist attack, it would be easy for Belarus to show that its stockpile remained intact.43 Similarly, Japan (one of the United States" closest allies) and South Africa would be keen to allow the United States to verify the integrity of their full stocks of materials. (In the wake of a nuclear terror attack, a lack of full cooperation in showing all materials accounted for would be highly revealing.) Iran is not believed to have any weapons-usable nuclear material to steal,44 although that could change. In short, a nuclear handoff strategy disguised as a loose nukes problem would be very precarious.45 No retaliation " international cooperation and limited suspects solve Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) There are at least five reasons, however, to expect that attributing a nuclear terrorist attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack. First, no terrorism investigation in history has had the resources that would be deployed to investigating the source of a nuclear terror attack"particularly one against the United States or a U.S. ally. Rapidly attributing the attack would be critical, not merely as a first step toward satisfying the rage of the victims but, more importantly, to determine whether additional nuclear attacks were imminent. The victim would use every resource at its disposal" money, threats, and force"to rapidly identify the source of the attack.47 If necessary, any investigation would go on for a long time; it would never "blow over" from the victim"s standpoint. The second reason why attributing a nuclear terror attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack is the level of international assistance the victim would likely receive from allies, neutrals, and even adversaries. An attack on the United States, for example, would likely trigger unprecedented intelligence cooperation from its allies, if for no other reason than the fear that subsequent attacks might target them. Perhaps more important, even adversaries of the United States"particularly those with access to fissile materials"would have enormous incentives to quickly demonstrate their innocence. To avoid being accused of sponsoring or supporting the attack, and thus to avoid the wrath of the United States, these countries would likely go to great lengths to demonstrate that their weapons were accounted for, that their fissile materials had different isotopic properties than the type used in the attack, and that they were sharing any information they had on the attack. The cooperation that the United States received from Iran and Pakistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks illustrates how potential adversaries may be motivated to help in the aftermath of an attack and stay off the target list for retaliation.48 The pressure to cooperate after an anonymous nuclear detonation on U.S. soil would be many times greater.49 Third, the strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities stemming from an attack and the rate of attribution (as depicted in figures 1 to 3 above) suggests that the probability of attribution after a nuclear attack" with its enormous casualties"should be even higher. The 97 percent attribution rate for attacks that killed ten or more people on U.S. soil or that of its allies is based on a set of attacks that were pinpricks compared to nuclear terrorism. The data in those figures suggest that our conclusions understate the actual likelihood of nuclear attribution. Fourth, the challenge of attribution after a terrorist nuclear attack should be easier than after a conventional terrorist attack, because the investigation would begin with a highly restricted suspect list. In the case of a conventional terror attack against the United States or an ally, one might begin the investigation at the broadest level with the U.S. Department of State"s list of fifty-one foreign terrorist organizations. In the case of a nuclear terror attack, only fifteen of these FTOs have state sponsors"and only one sponsor (Pakistan) has either nuclear weapons or fissile materials. (If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that number will grow to two, but there is no overlap between the terror groups that Pakistan supports and those that Iran assists.) Finally, any operation to detonate a nuclear weapon would involve complex planning and coordination"securing the weapon, learning to use it, planning the time and location of detonation, moving the weapon to the target, and conducting the attack. Even if only a small cadre of operatives knew the nuclear nature of the attack, the planning of a spectacular operation would be hard to keep secret.50 For example, six months prior to the September 11 attacks, Western intelligence detected numerous indications that al-Qaida was planning a major attack. The intelligence was not speci fic enough"or the agencies were not nimble enough"to prevent the operation, but the indicators were "blinking red" for months, directing U.S. attention to al-Qaida as soon as the attacks began.51 Turns Case Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance " empirics prove and turns case Haggerty and Gazso 2005 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005), pp. 169-187 "Seeing beyond the Ruins: Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats" JSTOR; accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However, a great deal of organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals adopted in the days after the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts. In previous incarnations these proposals had often been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs" or to address other crimes, such as money laundering. The September 11 th attacks gave the authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation for long-standing legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities, justifying existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against terrorism. Ultimately, the police, military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of increased funding, new technology and loosened legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism. Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the development of new "secret search" provisions. Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillance-related measures including legal enhancements to their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of cryptography, and provisions for governmental agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on their customers (Burnham, 1997). All of these proposals were recycled and implemented after the September 11th attacks now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions requiring banks to exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities as a means to counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an RCMP Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker gangs" [emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by the development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized record of information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be made available to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate. Such provisions raise the specter of informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has already indicated that this ostensible anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch domestic criminals. It will also be used to scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try and determine whether they might be a pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable goals, they also reveal how a host of other surveillance agendas have been furthered by capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse. Lone wolf terror attacks are used to justify disproportionate increases in surveillance and military operations abroad Lennard, Senior News Analyst for Vice News, 10/27/14 (Natasha Lennard, Brooklyn-based Senior News Analyst for Vice News, VICE News, October 27, 2014, "'Lone Wolf' Terrorist Acts Will Be Used to Justify the Surveillance State" https://news.vice.com..., accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) The phenomenon of individuals committing violent and murderous acts in the name of an ideology is nothing new in the US. The FBI's Operation Lone Wolf investigated white supremacists encouraging autonomous violent acts in the 1990s. Why, then, are we seeing pundits and politicians newly focus on the "lone wolf" category? There's no simple answer, but we can at the very least see that the old binary, distinguishing terror as the act of networked groups versus lone madman mass killings " a distinction that has tacitly undergirded post-9/11 conceptions of terrorism " doesn't serve the latest iteration of the war on terror. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, suggested that "the Internet, as well as certain specific Muslim extremists, are really firing up this lone-wolf phenomenon." Whether intentionally or not, the Senate Intelligence Committee chair performed a lot of political work with that one comment. Crystallizing "lone wolves" as a key threat domestically helps legitimize the US's current military operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. With or without established connections, the Islamic State's far-reaching tentacles of online influence encouraging individuals worldwide cement the group as a threat to the homeland " which is always useful for politicians struggling to legally justify another protracted war. In this way, attributing attacks to homegrown "lone wolves" is more useful for current US political interests than attributing them to madness alone. The assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Which is not to say that "lone wolf terrorist" is a flawed designation for attacks by ideologically motivated individuals. In many ways it seems apt, and any challenge is welcome to the all too basic distinction that imbues group terror with motive while dismissing individual acts as madness. The "lone wolf" straddles the ill-conceived gap between madman and terrorist node. It's an intersection all too complicated for the inexpert punditry of Fox News: "They are terrorist acts, to be sure," Megyn Kelly said about Canadian gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, adding "but this guy was also a nutcase." Furthermore, the assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Under the premise that terror networks ran like arteries through US Muslim communities enabled an era of profile-driven preemptive policing that has been nothing short of racist. Entire mosques in New York were designated terrorist organizations to enable police surveillance. The NSA's meta-data collections claim justifiability on the premise that terror was locatable by tracing networks of communication. The "lone wolf" phenomenon should at least prompt the questioning of the sort of profile-based counter-terror efforts that assumed terror lurked in any network of Muslims, and that the mass hoarding of communications data was vital to national security. However, the rhetoric surrounding this type of domestic threat already bodes ill for civil liberties. If the hunt for terrorist networks has been plagued by ethnic profiling and overreaching spycraft, an established threat of "lone wolf" attacks gives a defensive imprimatur for unbounded NSA-style surveillance " anyone can wield a hatchet with ideological ire. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul said on This Week, finding such lone actors in advance of attacks is like "finding a needle in a haystack." And as Feinstein said the same day, "You have to be able to watch it, and you have to be able to disrupt them." As such, the era of the "lone wolf" terrorist does not only spell the end of the bunk distinction between motivated group and deranged individual. It ushers in the dawn of a new era of justification for our totalized state of surveillance and national security paranoia. Surveillance would increase after a terrorist attack Feaver 1/13/15 (Peter D., 1/13/15, Foreign Policy, "10 Lessons to Remember After a Terrorist Attack," Peter is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow @ Duke University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy, http://foreignpolicy.com..., 7/16/15, SM) In particular, it is striking how some of the things that were "obvious" in the days and weeks after 9/11, but then were gradually forgotten, have become obvious again:W06; Terrorists succeed when they are abetted by intelligence failures. Or, put another way, terrorists only need to get lucky once to "succeed," whereas counterterrorism has to be lucky all the time to "succeed."W06; Even robust intelligence and law enforcement may not guarantee 100 percent safety and security. By global standards " certainly by the standards of Western democracies " France has a particularly formidable counterterrorist structure. But it failed in this instance.W06; When terrorists succeed in an attack, citizens demand that the government do more to protect them " even if they have already been doing a lot. And steps that would have seemed heavy handed before the attack, say aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorists or visible demonstrations of presence by the security forces, are deemed not just tolerable but necessary. Moreover, savvy political leaders will understand that one of the benefits of a stronger official response is that it is a hedge both against dangerously stronger vigilantism and also against additional pressure from some segments of the public to do more than is wise. Terrorism leads to crackdowns History.com, Reaction to 9/11, http://www.history.com..., 2010 "Today," the French newspaper Le Monde announced on September 12, 2001, "we are all Americans." People around the world agreed: The terrorist attacks of the previous day had felt like attacks on everyone, everywhere. They provoked an unprecedented expression of shock, horror, solidarity and sympathy for the victims and their families. Citizens of 78 countries died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11, and people around the world mourned lost friends and neighbors. They held candlelight vigils. They donated money and goods to the Red Cross and other rescue and relief organizations. Flowers piled up in front of American embassies. Cities and countries commemorated the attacks in a variety of ways: The Queen Mother sang the American national anthem at Buckingham Palace"s Changing of the Guard, while in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro put up huge billboards that showed the city"s famous Christ the Redeemer statue embracing the New York City skyline. Meanwhile, statesmen and women rushed to condemn the attacks and to offer whatever aid they could to the United States. Russian president Vladimir Putin called the strikes "a blatant challenge to humanity," while German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder declared that the events were "not only attacks on the people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people." He added, "We will not let these values be destroyed." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien denounced the "cowardly and depraved assault." He tightened security along the border and arranged for hundreds of grounded airplanes to land at Canadian airports. Even leaders of countries that did not tend to get along terribly well with the American government expressed their sorrow and dismay. The Cuban foreign minister offered airspace and airports to American planes. Chinese and Iranian officials sent their condolences. And the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, visibly dismayed, told reporters in Gaza that the attacks were "unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable." "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack," he said, "and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration." But public reaction was mixed. The leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas announced that "no doubt this is a result of the injustice the U.S. practices against the weak in the world." Likewise, people in many different countries believed that the attacks were a consequence of America"s cultural hegemony, political meddling in the Middle East and interventionism in world affairs. The Rio billboards hadn"t been up for long before someone defaced them with the slogan "The U.S. is the enemy of peace." Some, especially in Arab countries, openly celebrated the attacks. But most people, even those who believed that the United States was partially or entirely responsible for its own misfortune, still expressed sorrow and anger at the deaths of innocent people. On September 12, the 19 ambassadors of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of the member nations. This statement of solidarity was mostly symbolic"NATO did not authorize any specific military action"but it was still unprecedented. It was the first time that the organization had ever invoked the mutual defense section of its charter (intended to protect vulnerable European nations from Soviet invasion during the Cold War). NATO eventually sent five airplanes to help keep an eye on American airspace. Likewise, on September 12 the United Nations Security Council called on all nations to "redouble their efforts" to thwart and prosecute terrorists. Two weeks later, it passed another resolution that urged states to "suppress the financing of terrorism" and to aid in any anti-terrorism campaigns. But these declarations of support and solidarity didn"t mean that other countries gave the United States a free hand to retaliate however, and against whomever, it pleased. Allies and adversaries alike urged caution, warning that an indiscriminate or disproportionate reaction could alienate Muslims around the world. In the end, almost 30 nations pledged military support to the United States, and many more offered other kinds of cooperation. Most agreed with George Bush that, after September 11, the fight against terrorism was "the world"s fight." Terrorists Hate US Al Qaeda Al Qaeda is expanding and plotting attacks against the West Hubbard 6/9/2015 (Ben, Al Qaeda Tries a New Tactic to Keep Power: Sharing It, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/middleeast/qaeda-yemen-syria-houthis.html) BEIRUT, Lebanon " After they routed the army in southern Yemen, fighters from Al Qaeda stormed into the city of Al Mukalla, seizing government buildings, releasing jihadists from prison and stealing millions of dollars from the central bank. Then they surprised everyone. Instead of raising their flags and imposing Islamic law, they passed control to a civilian council and gave it a budget to pay salaries, import fuel and hire teams to clean up garbage. The fighters receded into the background, maintaining only a single police station to arbitrate disputes. Al Qaeda"s takeover of Yemen"s fifth-largest city in April was the most direct indication yet that the group"s most potent regional affiliates are evolving after years of American drone strikes killing their leaders and changing to meet the challenge posed by the Islamic State"s competing and land-grabbing model of jihad. While the image of Al Qaeda has long been one of shadowy operatives plotting international attacks from remote hide-outs, its branches in Yemen and Syria are now increasingly making common cause with local groups on the battlefield. In doing so, they are distancing themselves from one of Osama bin Laden"s central precepts: That fighters should focus on the "far enemy" in the West and not get bogged down in local insurgencies. In recent weeks, the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has allied with armed tribes to fight Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, putting that alliance on the same side of the country"s civil war as the United States and Saudi Arabia. In Syria, Qaeda-allied fighters are important members of a rebel coalition against President Bashar al-Assad that includes groups supported by the West. This strategy has clear benefits for a group that has long been near the top of the United States"s list of enemies by allowing it to build local support while providing some cover against the threat of foreign military action. But despite Al Qaeda"s increased involvement in local battles, American officials say the group remains committed to attacking the West, a goal that could be easier to plot from sanctuaries where it enjoys local support. Cooperating with others could also give Al Qaeda a long-term advantage in its competition with the extremists of the Islamic State, analysts said. Since its public break with Al Qaeda last year, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has stolen the jihadist limelight by seizing cities in Syria and Iraq and declaring a caliphate in the territory it controls. This has won it the allegiances of other militant cells from Libya to Afghanistan. The Islamic State has insisted that other groups join it or be considered enemies, a tactic that has alienated many in areas it controls. And its public celebration of violence, including the beheading of Western hostages, helped spur the formation of a United States-led military coalition that is bombing the group. Al Qaeda"s branches in Syria and Yemen have taken a different route, building ties with local groups and refraining from the strict application of Shariah, the legal code of Islam, when faced with local resistance, according to residents of areas where Al Qaeda holds sway. When Al Qaeda took over Al Mukalla in April, it seized government buildings and used trucks to cart off more than $120 million from the central bank, according to the bank"s director, Abdul-Qader Foulihan. That sum could not be independently verified. But it soon passed control to a civilian council, giving it a budget of more than $4 million to provide services, an arrangement that made sense to local officials seeking to serve their people during wartime. "We are not Qaeda stooges," said Abdul-Hakeem bin Mahfood, the council"s secretary general, in a telephone interview. "We formed the council to avoid the destruction of the city." While the council pays salaries and distributes fuel, Al Qaeda maintains a police station to settle disputes, residents said. It has so far made no effort to ban smoking or regulate how women dress. Nor has it called itself Al Qaeda, instead using the name the Sons of Hadhramaut to emphasize its ties to the surrounding province. One self-described Qaeda member said that the choice of name was deliberate, recalling that after the group seized territory in southern Yemen in 2011, the country"s military had mobilized to push it out with support from the United States. "We were in control for a year and six months, we applied God"s law, we created a small state and the whole world saw it, but they did not leave us alone," the man said in an interview with a Yemeni television station. "So we came here with the name the Sons of Hadhramaut, but the people here know who we are." American officials have long considered the terrorist group"s Yemeni branch, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous to the West. It has sought to carry out attacks against the United States, and it retains sophisticated bomb-making expertise. Now, Yemen"s civil war has given the group an opportunity to expand, analysts said. Can"t deter Al-Qaeda Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") The third type of terrorist who might prove undeterrable were they to acquire these weapons is Al Qaeda itself. Unlike terrorists who serve the liberation claims of a particular group of people, Al Qaeda does not depend for its support on a particular population who could be subjected to revenge or retribution following an attack. Thus the attackers on Afghan soil. Once Afghanistan had served its function as a base, it was dispensable as far as Al Qaeda was concerned. Since their goal is not the acquisition of power itself but the punishment of the United States and its strategic allies, they cannot be stopped by political negotiation, concession, or appeasement. Nor are they susceptible to the incentives that make some armed groups conform to the laws of war in order to achieve international recognition or legitimacy. This indifference to incentives and sanctions applies not merely to Al Qaeda but to any cult with charismatic psychopaths at its head. It is hard to see what political action a state could have taken to deter the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo before it released toxic agents in the Tokyo subway system. 9 Unlike political groups seeking liberation or national territory, these cults cannot be engaged politically, and since they are closed and conspiratorial, they are difficult to infiltrate and neutralize. The logic of deterrence that once kept state violence in some kind of check has no traction with loners and the cult leaders of global terrorism. Since they promise their followers eternal life, they create a cadre of undeterrables. Standard rationality doesn"t apply to Al-Qaeda " they cannot be deterred Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") In the examples considered so far, it has become clear that where armed groups have a real prospect of obtaining recognition and statehood, they may be persuaded to abstain from terrorism. Where their success in this struggle depends on retaining the support of local populations, they may also conclude that restraint pays better than atrocity. But these incentives and restraining factors do not apply to all terrorist groups. No such factors discipline the conduct of Al Qaeda. They have no aspirations to statehood and therefore no incentive to play by any known rules. They do not serve a determinate population and are therefore unconstrained either by their supporters" moral code or by their vulnerability to reprisal. They even appear indifferent to casualties inflicted on Muslim populations who live or work in proximity to their targets. This is what makes them so dangerous. This is also why they cannot be engaged politically and must instead be defeated militarily. Al Qaeda is therefore a distinctive kind of terrorism, no longer in the service of a people"s freedom or in the name of the overthrow of a given state. The apocalyptic nihilists who attacked the United States on September 11 did not leave behind justifications, noble or otherwise, for their actions. They directed their propaganda and their justifications not at a specific state denying a claim to self-determination, but at the United States as the hated imperial capital of a materialistic, secular, and alien civilization. The so-called martyrs defended their actions in the language of Islamic eschatology, not in the language of rights. 33 Moreover, their intentions were apocalyptic, not political: to humiliate the archenemy of Islam and secure martyrdom in the process. It is difficult to see, in principle, how acts unaccompanied by demands can be accommodated politically. If the goal of terrorism is neither territory nor freedom, if its purpose is to strike a blow that asserts the dignity of Muslim believers while inflicting horror and death upon their enemies, then it is difficult to envisage a political response of any kind. Such an attack cannot be met by politics but only by war. Generic Biological realism explains terrorism " means it"s impossible to stop it Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Yet, even if al-Qaida is diminished, Islamic fundamentalist suicide attacks will continue to be executed by al-Qaida-inspired groups, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Taliban because they are an effective asymmetric tactic against some of the world"s most hardened security forces. Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorists have penetrated British, French, Israeli, and U.S. defenses, among others. Moreover, only suicide terrorists could have executed the September 11 attacks or penetrated the Israeli security corridor bordering the Palestinian Authority, because they alone could navigate the countless security obstacles and be capable of self-destructing at a precise location and time while causing the greatest damage. As Mustafa Alani puts it, "It"s what we call a thinking, walking bomb. He watches the whole scene [and] chooses the best time and best location."4 Suicide terrorism is the ultimate smart bomb, demonstrating unparalleled political commitment and personal resoluteness. Scholars have examined Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism primarily through the lens of international politics, economics, and cultural studies, and each offers important insights into the motivation and recruitment policies of groups that practice it. There is, however, another discipline that can make a useful contribution"the life sciences. We argue that the application of concepts and approaches from the life sciences yields new insights into (1) the causal context of Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism, (2) the motivation of suicide terrorists, and (3) policy approaches to subvert this form of terrorism. A consilient approach, incorporating ideas from the life sciences and the social sciences, can aid social scientists and policy analysts in addressing the problem of Islamic suicide terrorism.5 The life sciences can be a source of new analogies and examples that might help scholars and analysts to approach the problem in fresh ways and derive effective policies.6 Our argument is important for three reasons. First, understanding the motivations of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is critical for creating policies to stop them, ideally before they become terrorists. Second, our approach helps to illuminate why few Islamic fundamentalist terrorists defect and how policies may be crafted to promote defections. Finally, it advances the goal of consilience"that is, using insights from human evolution and ecology, as well as from the social sciences, to create a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of human behavior. In essence, consilient approaches bridge the gap between the life sciences and the social sciences. For the advancement of knowledge concerning human behavior, there may be no more important task than removing the barriers between the life sciences and the social sciences, which we believe will revolutionize both fields of study.7 The evolutionary structure of terrorist organizations makes them impossible to deter Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Alpha males try to resolve this inevitable tension through male bonding. By persuading non-alpha males that they are all "family," alpha males may be able to dampen intragroup tensions. Evolutionary psychology also helps to explain why this strategy will be effective. Humans evolved in small-group dominance hierarchies"principally the family and extended family hunter groups. Accordingly, the human mind is well suited for comprehending and bonding with small groups of dozens or, at most, 100 or 150 people.24 To be sure, humans may bond with larger units (e.g., a country), but that requires an extensive effort by the state (e.g., years of nationalistic education). In mimicking the family bond, male-bonded groups often assume the task of educating young males, providing another family-like service. Young people often embrace indoctrination into a belief system through a religion or an educational system, or the combination of the two, such as in madrassas.25 Emulating the family also makes the male-bonded group more resilient"harder to penetrate and to destroy"similar to the family or the mafia and suggests they must be targeted in unique ways. The dynamics described above are found among all societies, not only those of the Islamic world. Alpha males will seek to co-opt non-alpha males into male-bonded societies in which violence is controlled by alphas and guided toward out-groups, not in-groups (and especially not targeted toward the alphas). In this study, however, we limit ourselves to examining factors that we argue contribute to Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism. Of course, even within the Islamic world, individuals will possess other motivations to conduct suicide attacks. For example, there is evidence that at least some Iraqi male teenagers have been forced to train as suicide bombers under fear of reprisals against their families. Terrorism"s engrained in Islamic societies " it"s the only way for non-Alpha males to achieve status Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Baldly put, polygyny means mates for some men and none for others. And who will not obtain mates? It will not be those with advantages, but rather those who lack them. Non-alpha males will be the reproductive losers, and this gives them great motivation to use force, the sole area in which they possibly hold a reproductively relevant advantage over alpha males. Alpha males and non-alpha males understand the ramifications of polygyny for their relations: polygyny will heighten in-group violence against alpha males by non-alpha males absent a mechanism that directs this violence to an out-group. From the perspective of alpha males, suicide terrorism offers some interesting possibilities. A non-alpha male in a polygynous society with high levels of gender differentiation wants to find a way to project power, preferably through violence. In this way, he hopes to obtain greater social status and thus greater reproductive success. An alpha male in the same society wants to find a way to channel that violence to out-groups without allowing the nonalpha male to achieve social status through violence, which ultimately could threaten the interests of the alpha males. Suicide terrorism, sanctioned and applauded by religious belief, represents an attractive strategy in this context. If alpha males can persuade non-alpha males that (1) their violence should be directed to out-groups, (2) that thereby these non-alpha males will greatly increase their social status and make their families proud, but (3) they will have to die and experience their reproductive success vicariously through their kin, or in the afterlife, then the threat of in-group violence can be decreased. For some non-alpha males, becoming a shaheed is the most effective response to the human evolutionary conundrum produced by male dominance hierarchies, high levels of gender differentiation, and the scarcity of females resulting from polygyny.40 In 2003 Robert Pape found that among Islamic suicide terrorists, 97 percent were single and 84 percent were male. If one excludes the Kurdistan Workers" Party, which promotes gender equality, the gender ratio rises to 91 percent.41 These young men come predominantly from lower socio-economic strata of society than those involved in nonsuicide terrorism, despite the somewhat anomalous case of the September 11 attacks. Evolutionary psychology would predict that this subpopulation would be most susceptible to the lure of suicide terrorism. Islamic religious texts promise the shaheed seventy-two virgins in the afterlife. 42 Miller and Kanazawa note, "It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivate many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single."43 Failed suicide bombers may not admit to this temptation as motivation for their action, perhaps considering it too vulgar or impious. Nevertheless, it can be a key draw for a male contemplating poor reproductive prospects in this life. In March 2004, Husam Abdu (also Abdo), a sixteen-year-old failed suicide bomber captured at an Israeli checkpoint in Gaza, explained to Israeli intelligence officials that his dwarfism made him the object of ridicule at school, and he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with virgins in paradise. 44 Another captured would-be suicide terrorist, a Moroccan man, aged twenty-six, suffered from facial disfigurement.45 A study of suicide bombers in Iraq conducted by the U.S. military found that they were almost always single males from eighteen to thirty, with a mean age of twenty-two and no children. 46 The study concluded that most are "alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark."47 Immigration DA (WIP) tag Levy 6-3 (Gabrielle, Capitol Hill analyst at US News, "Signs of Life For Immigration Reform," June 3 2015, http://www.usnews.com...) With comprehensive immigration reform essentially dead on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future, Republicans appear poised to advance a series of incremental measures to address the hot-button issue amid political pressure to tackle the broken system. W06; GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have proposed potential areas of compromise they hope can help the party handle the delicate balance between appeasing the demands of the base in beefing up border security while addressing the practical economic need for foreign labor.W06; The moves come amid almost no progress on immigration legislation since the then-Democratically controlled Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. The impasse led President Barack Obama to issue executive orders protecting some groups of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation " infuriating Republicans in the process.W06; With the unilateral moves halted by a federal judge, congressional leadership has been content to sidestep the thorny issue after losing a faceoff in March in which they unsuccessfully tried to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to a rollback of the Obama actions. But the looming presidential race has increased the sense of urgency among some of the rank and file eager to see the party raise its standing among Hispanic voters.W06; "If you"re a Republican [running for president], you at minimum want the immigration issue neutralized, and maybe gain votes where Mitt Romney was unable to get them" in 2012, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Foundation for American Policy.W06; While any of the the piecemeal proposals faces long odds to passage and even less chance of cooperation with the White House, one area of focus appears to be on guest worker programs that would increase the number and accessibility of visas for both high- and low-skilled workers. The reform already has bipartisan support.W06; "When it comes to illegal immigration, what"s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. "From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let"s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program."W06; Some studies have suggested that, instead of taking away jobs from Americans, those workers help spur economic growth. It"s a position immigration advocates hope to use to sell the issue to a broader constituency.W06; "If you don"t have a restaurant worker working in the kitchen " you"re not going to have good jobs, waiter jobs, management jobs in restaurants for Americans," says Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. "So we need to connect with the middle class and show that immigration is good for the middle class."W06; NOGALES, AZ - JANUARY 21: The U.S.-Mexico border fence on January 21, 2014 in Nogales, Arizona. (Photograph by Charles Ommanney/Reportage by Getty Images)W06; RELATEDW06; Tracing the 2016 Fault LinesW06; Aguilar"s organization has suggested setting up guest worker programs for low-skilled workers that would allow the number of visas to fluctuate based on the needs of businesses. The system, particularly suited to the needs of the agricultural industry, would allow workers to come into the U.S. for a few months of the year, then return to their home countries.W06; A more narrowly tailored bill from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also gained some interest from advocates on both sides of the aisle. The measure, which has yet to move in committee, would increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields, and make it easier for those workers to stay in the U.S.W06; "Just like in business, I don't want the smart people working in my competitor's business, I want them working in mine," Johnson said. "The same thing should be true for a national economy: If we use American resources to educate the brightest people from around the world ... we should provide every incentive for the brightest minds to be working here to grow our economy." |
1 | 430e61ef-2019-04-18T11:40:00Z-00001-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Teachers should be armed I think teachers should have arms, why would we cut them off? what do you have against teachers? |
39 | 7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00003-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy In ROUND 2 my opponent makes several points--including accusing the U.S. Federal Reserve of forcing inflation to benefit the U.S. economy. She also accuses this federal organization of "crook[ing] the books" to make the numbers it reports look good to the American people. This second specific point is an allegation of wild conspiracy and I consider it irrelevant to the debate; however, she does use this argument to indicate that inflation is actually higher than what is reported, because of alterations to the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is computed since the early 1970s [1]. (My opponent is actually wrong. Excluding the prices of fuel and food from the CPI has been the way the U.S. Federal Reserve has been computing this parameter for decades now--not beginning in 2009, as she claims [2].)I want to point out that if inflation is actually higher than what the U.S. Federal Reserve is reporting, than this should motivate us even more to hike the minimum wage and index it to inflation! This means that the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is even less than what the U.S. Labor Department is already reporting--and it's reporting a significant decrease in the value of the minimum wage over the last four decades in real terms with great worry [3]. (However, the inflation rate as reported is accurate; my opponent is in fact mistaken about the way the CPI is traditionally computed since the 1970s [2].)My opponent also claims that worker output should decide "pay scales in a real economy". I will demonstrate why she's correct, and why the 20% increase in worker productivity observed over this last decade should correspond with an increase in the federal minimum wage [4].I will demonstrate this and other reasons for hiking the federal minimum wage in this ROUND.Inflation has many causes, which is why the Federal Minimum Wage should be Indexed to InflationMy opponent argues that raising the federal minimum wage would be pointless, as inflation would eventually eat the gains caused by increasing the minimum wage. And on this point she is moderately right; however, inflation has many causes, as economists point out, and it's a healthy economic trend in any growing economy--as long as it stays within limits [5]. Inflation is caused when demand for a product or service outstrips supply, which causes prices to go up; it can also be caused when new popular technology is introduced--some brand names demand higher prices; but it can also be caused by the depletion of natural resources, by natural disasters, by an increase in production costs, by the deregulation of banks, by government regulation and taxation, by business monopolies, by the expansion of the money supply, and various other reasons [5]. Inflation is natural and unavoidable in any economy. But too much of it can present problems, which is why the federal government tries to regulate it wherever it can [5]. Increasing wages can also create inflation if a business passes on the wage increase to consumers, but this doesn't always happen [6]. Recently, inflation has caused even pay raises among middle class workers to be fruitless, as the modest pay increases simply aren't enough to deal with the deleterious effects of inflation, especially as the income gap grows between well-to-do employers, who are increasingly keeping more of their profits, and all other wage earners [7][4]. As I demonstrated in ROUND 2, the nation's wealthiest Americans are generating income comfortably exceeding the rate of inflation; the middle class has seen either stagnant wage growth or negative wage growth when accounting for the effect; the lower classes have seen the worse decline in income over this last decade [4]. Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would eliminate the accumulated deleterious effects of inflation over the years for low wage earners; linking (or "indexing") it to inflation would ensure the effects are prevented in the future.Four states--Florida, Oregon, Washington, Vermont--have already indexed their state minimum wage to inflation, and Minnesota is currently proposing to do so [8]. After raising the state minimum wage and indexing, the state of Washington saw no negative impact on employment some initially feared would be there [9]. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and then having it adjusted every year to keep pace with the rising cost of living [10]. It is a congressional bill President Obama endorses and continues to endorse [11], particularly in light of the recent executive order he enacted which hiked the federal minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10 [12].Since 2000, worker productivity is up 20%In ROUND 2, my opponent claims that worker productivity should decide their pay wages. I whole-heartedly agree! That's why I endorse raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Since 2000 worker productivity has risen 20%, even while median hourly wages among all workers have increased by only 3% [4]. Even more astounding is that since 2003, median hourly wages among all workers have not increased at all--zero increase in hourly wages--while the income of the nation's richest 5% have increased by 9% [4]! The nation's top 1% of earners have seen their incomes rise by 31.4% since 2009 [13]!This trend is frightening. While the nation's workers have seen their productivity rise, their income has not grown at all; yet the income of the nation's top 5% of earners continues to surge upward [4][5], widening the income gap. When the effects of inflation are incorporated, middle-class workers have seen their incomes stagnant while lower-class workers have seen the value of their wages depreciate, contributing to an uptick in poverty [4][14].Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the "poverty threshold" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [15][19]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the "povery guidelines" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as "living in poverty". The "poverty guidelines" are in actuality simplified versions of the "poverty thresholds" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [19]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as "living in poverty", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [17].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [15]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [15]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [15].The congressional budget office (CBO) projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [18]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn't let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [14].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [13]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [13].(Note: R2 = Round 2; S# = Source number)[1] (http://www.bankrate.com...)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] S8, R2[4] S3, R2[5] (http://useconomy.about.com...)[6] (http://www.wisegeek.com...)[7] (http://www.washingtonpost.com...)[8] (http://www.ehow.com...)[9] (http://seattletimes.com...)[10] (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...)[11] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[12] S11, R2[13] S5, R2[14] S4, R2[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[16] (http://www.worldhunger.org...)[17] (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...)[18] S1, R2[19] S2, R2 |
27 | 25f87e03-2019-04-18T16:22:01Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun control is a stupid idea So, my opponent chooses to simply declare my sources unreliable.http://www.liberales-waffenrecht.de...Well, this picture is taken from the official police statistics in Germany, and it is found on a site called "Liberales Waffenrecht", and even people who can't understand German will be able to tell what "liberal" means. This site advocates a liberalization of gun control, yet provides the same statistic: a decrease in gun related deaths in SPITE of German gun control.Here's the article to which this relates, you can clearly see the title above.http://www.liberales-waffenrecht.de...So, despite my opponent's desperate claims, my statistics are factual and official, and are even used by opponents of gun control.The resolution claims gun control to be a stupid IDEA. Ideas are not bound to national borders, nor has the opening resolution shown any indication of national restrictions.In Germany and the UK, gun control has proved to be a very good idea, with the death rate by guns being significantly lower than in the USA.My opponent now wants to expand on his original argument.He claims that laws serve as restrictions to freedom. So, we are now arguing that all laws are bad because they limit freedom? Did my opponent not say that "Criminals don't obey laws" anyway?So, the discussion about laws is - by the parameters set by my opponent - totally irrelevant and serves as a mere distraction here.Then my opponent talks about Nazi Germany, which is the classic "appeal to the extremes" fallacy. We do not live in Nazi Germany. And to believe that gun control was a substantial part in the genocide is totally unfounded. Germany, as opposed to the USA, has never had a history of armed resistance against the government.We were originally discussing "one thing": "What would stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using it on an armless public?"Now we are apparently discussing "tyranny"? Another distraction.But Germany has had the worst tyranny ever, and despite gun control the tyranny has not broken out again. So, there's no indication that gun control leads to tyranny. In fact, Germany and the USA are allies."The constitution allows Americans the right to bear arms as a personal right because the founding fathers recognized the threat of tyranny and the need for self-defense."Oh, do we have witness accounts for that or is that just an inductive conclusion?"The threat of tyranny still exists in our modern world today and is a very valid reason for having the rights to own and use a gun."I say it's not in our society. Tyranny can be found in countries where armed militia roam the streets and there is no gun control in effect. Provide proof of your allegation.As for my explicit SIDE-NOTE:Thanks for your opinion on this. It does, however, not pertain to our debate, so I will not delve much deeper into this."Gun control commits the fallacy of assuming that guns in circulation will be eliminated once gun control laws are enacted. They won't."My opponent does not know the future. In Australia, guns have been collected and the number of gun related deaths has decreased."In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth. Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."http://ftp.iza.org...So, fact again goes against the precognition of my opponent.I will under no circumstances try to imagine how the mind of an addict works. Only an addict can understand that."Guns are self-defense for the vast majority of responsible gun owners" - which, as I pointed out, will not be negatively affected by gun control."protection from the threat of tyranny" - criminals, about which this debate is, will not protect society from tyranny."and common sense to acknowledge guns won't be removed from circulation once gun control laws are enacted." And fact in Australia and Germany goes against this alleged "common sense".A final question for my opponent: If we do not control guns, will that not just mean guns are far more easily accessible to NON-RESPONSIBLE gun owners and criminals? Will this not put the RESPONSIBLE gun-owners who can easily obtain a permit under gun control in disadvantage?My opponent's arguments make little sense in that regard. Gun control is not about taking all guns away, it's about leaving guns only in the hands of responsible gun owners.It is thus not a stupid idea. |
17 | 93ed752f-2019-04-18T11:37:10Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Recreational Marijuana Recreational marijuana has recently become legal for recreational use in 8 states and the District of Columbia, under Proposition 64, of those 8 states being California. There is a great amount of controversy surrounding the passing of recreational marijuana. Legalized marijuana is regulated for customer safety. Before recreational marijuana was legalized and dispensaries started to be created people were buying it off of the street. This meant that it was being grown by the person selling it or they got it from someone who may have gotten it from another person. This meant that the consumer didn't know if there were harmful drugs or chemicals mixed in the product they were buying. According to The American Public Health Association (APHA), who wrote and article called "Regulating Commercially Legalized Marijuana as a Public Health Priority" on November 18. 2014, with recreational marijuana being legalized it will allow the government to enforce laboratory testing and regulations to make sure that the marijuana being sold is free of toxins. This means that the consumer will no longer have to buy off of the street but will be able to go into a dispensary where the marijuana has been tested for toxins in a laboratory. On January 8th, 2018 a Washington State Legislator posted and article called "WAC 314-55-105: Packaging and Labeling Requirements" which by law requires Washington state to produce health warnings, quality assurance, THC content and concentration, as well as other important information for the consumer. This allows the consumer to know exactly what is in their product its just like food labels that provide the consumer with information about what is inside weather is be vitamins, fat, or sugars. Legalizing marijuana allows for the consumer to read exactly what they are buying and know that it complies with the government regulations. The Bureau of Cannabis Control states that with recreational marijuana being legalized it allows the government to set age restrictions and the people buying it as well as license and regulate the entire supply chain of marijuana including growers, distributors, retailers, and testing labs. This means that the government will be able to control how much and who is selling the marijuana and it will decrease the amount of dealers on the streets selling and importing illegally. Brooke Staggs, a reporter of cannabis, wrote in and article titled " "Here Are the Rules for Legal Marijuana in California Once Law Goes into Effect Jan. 1," in November of 2017, that in California alone the legalizing of recreational marijuana will requires regulations that include limitations on the serving sizes for edible marijuana products, seed-to-sale testing and tracking, and 24-hour video surveillance at retail stores. The Government will now be able to monitor what is being sold to each consumer making shops close at 10 P.M every night. They will also be able to regulate where shops are located which requires them to be 600 ft away from any school according to The Bureau of Cannabis Control Regulations. |
19 | 8220b514-2019-04-18T14:16:29Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage 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] |
44 | 5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Pro stated:"On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so." Rebuttal: The Federal Government does not force it's employees to "celebrate this religious festival". The paid holiday period can be observed, but it can also be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion best suited to their ideology. In fact, not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays. The Department of Defense requires it's employees to submit a request for Holiday-down time. All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty. The military leave policy can be review here: Army --Army Regulation 600-8-10 - Leaves and Passes Air Force --Air Force Instruction 36-3003 - Military Leave Program Navy --MILPERSMAN 1050, Leave and Liberty Marine Corps --Marine Corps Order (MCO) P1050.3H - Regulations for Leave, Liberty, and Administrative Absence To satisfy the burden of this premise, Pro must show that observance of the Christmas ceremony is being forced upon federal employees, that mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee. ------------------ Pro stated:"Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars." Rebuttal: The Unites States government's gross annual revenue from domestic product sales is estimated at 2.9 trillion dollars at the Federal level. [1] Approximately 19.5% of these sales occur over the Holiday season. [2] The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay. ------------------ Pro stated: "No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar." Rebuttal: The Jewish Holiday of Purim is a big Israeli gift-exchanging holiday, but Hanukkah celebrates eight days of gift-giving in the North American tradition. The Muslims exchange gifts over two Eids in Ramadan as well. The Indian celebration of Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities. Hence: The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact, while wikipedia reports that 78% of Americans are Christians, a recent Gallup reported in the "Statistical Illusion" article showed that only 20% of Americans are truly Christians, as defined by their Church. [3] That means 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday. ------------------ Pro Claimed: The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate "even for" non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights, Putting up "Christmas" trees, Giving gifts, Sending greeting cards" Rebuttal: I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation. Which federal law, passed in which year by what ruling body made the above list a federal "designation"? This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists. Federal observance of the Christmas Holiday was passed in 1870. It did not dictate how the holiday should be observed. Conclusion: It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance. Non-government entities are not required to shut down for Christmas. "Constitutionally, there are no "national holidays" in the United States because Congress only has authority to create holidays for federal institutions (including federally owned properties) and employees, and for the District of Columbia." [4] Lastly, it should be noted that getting time off for the Christmas season does not mandate Church attendance or religious observance. You are free to spend Christmas catching up on sleep, getting drunk, or like most Americans, try to take advantage of spectacular discounts on retail prices. Going to Church is optional. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... [1] http://www.nrf.com... [2] http://www.christianitytoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] |
8 | b1852ba9-2019-04-18T18:28:00Z-00002-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion Put simply, Con has not addressed maternal death. I will show you: After pushing away the offered definition, Con proposed that life starts at conception. Because he offered that "abortion should be illegal," he has to handle ectopic pregnancies as a termination of this very dangerous medical condition would be outlawed under Con's absolute law. Con does not offer a medical exception. Abortion is illegal, period. Because abortion is illegal, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy will have to carry to term. The 9% death rate is low because the pregnancies are terminated. Under Con's law, the death rate will sky rocket. Under Con's law any woman who would need an abortion due to a potentially high risk pregnancy will simply be out of luck. All he can say at this point is, "let them die." I made an effort to allow Con to avoid this troublesome position, but he elected to take it anyway. He has no other choice but to defend this cruelty as he backed himself into a corner with the life at conception position. When I write that he has not addressed this point, I am asking him to follow his law to its logical conclusion. He won't do this because it is as cruel as it sounds. Instead of addressing this major point, the biggest in this debate, he changes the subject. Now we will talk more about statistics as this is the closest Con has come to addressing maternal death – presenting rates and numbers. Ectopic Pregnancy: Con presents some numbers to say the death rate of ectopic pregnancy is low. I don't care if it was lower. Please follow through and say, "Only 360,000 will die, let them. Abortion should still be illegal." This point is your logical conclusion. Now, the death rate of 9% is a product of termination. The risk of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to term is astronomical: "Although there have been a few reported cases of women giving birth by cesarean section to live infants that were located outside the uterus, this is extremely rare. The chance of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to full term is so remote, and the risk to the woman so great, that it can never be recommended." http://www.medicinenet.com... You won't allow these procedures, as such; the numbers you presented are not relevant. All the numbers in the world do not fix this matter for you. Elective Abortion: Your law bans ALL abortions, elective or otherwise, so these numbers are, again, irrelevant. Roe v. Wade: And? What does this have to do with maternal death rates and the rise of such rates under your law? This is off topic. Con allowed me to take a very safe position in this debate. I need not worry about elective abortions as I am only concerned about medical necessity. Going into our conclusions, Con should be honest and say, outright, that he knows mothers will die because his law will not allow them to make a choice based on medical necessity. I don't see how he has any other choice. |
28 | f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00003-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution Should be Legalized Thank you. You have brought up good points. Arguments: Prostitution is basically personalized pornography[2]. Pornography is good for you[1], and perfectly legal, making the it seem unfair that prostitution is illegal. In fact, it would be legal if any of the parties filmed it and distributed the video. There are a few apparent contradictions with the law here. Prostitutes are also similar to promiscuous people, with the exception of the fee. It is pretty much unavoidable that there are going to be people who sleep with strangers and enjoy it, and it should be allowed if they want to make money off of it. If prostitution were government regulated, it could be the new lottery. What I mean is it would bring in thousands upon thousand of tax dollars each year[8], helping our US government pay off its huge debt[9]. The Declaration of Independence tries to give citizens the right to the pursuit of happiness[3]. This may be a stretch, but it still stands that if prostituting yourself makes you happy and is something you enjoy, you shouldn"t be prevented from doing it. Rebuttals: "It promotes children to be trafficked" In fact, it would do quite the opposite. Children being trafficked, especially for sex, is terrible and unfortunately happens very often[4]. However, they're an easier target because children are not as smart or strong as adults and therefore more vulnerable. If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive[5]. It would also decrease human trafficking in general[6]. "Most of the prostitutes are victims" Right now that is true. But like I mentioned, if it were legal, there would be ore willing participants and thus a much lower demand for people to be forced into prostitution against their will. In a world without sex trafficking, prostitution would be a victimless crime[5]. "Whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job" There will always be risks, as there are with any profession. Making prostitution legal will decrease these risks. Nevada was the first state in the US to legalize prostitution. They have very smart laws set to keep their workers safe that could not be enforced if prostitution were considered a crime. The employees are given monthly STD tests, have a "safety button" in the case of a client getting too aggressive, and brothels can"t seek to recruit new prostitutes[7]. Quotes[10]: 1 If nobody wants to sell sex, it is a crime to force anyone to do so. But when men or women do want to sell their bodies, they should have that full right without encountering punishment or discrimination. If the client behaves decently, the relationship between the sex buyer and the sex seller must be considered a purely private transaction. " NILS JOHAN RINGDAL, Love For Sale 2 "The obscenities of this country are not [prostitutes]. It is the poverty which is obscene, and the criminal irresponsibility of the leaders who make this poverty a deadening reality. The obscenities in this country are the places of the rich, the new hotels made at the expense of the people, the hospitals where the poor die when they get sick because they don't have the money either for medicines or services. It is only in this light that the real definition of obscenity should be made." R13; F. Sionil Jos", Ermita: A Filipino Novel 3 The only way to stop this trafficking in and profiting from the use of women's bodies is for prostitution to be legalized. Legalization will open it up to regulation; and regulation means safety. JEANNETTE ANGELL, Callgirl 4 When prostitution is a crime, the message conveyed is that women who are sexual are "bad," and therefore legitimate victims of sexual assault. Sex becomes a weapon to be used by men. MARGO ST. JAMES, San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 29, 1979 5 People tend to be put off by the idea of selling sex, but if you spend a winter's night with one of them and talk with her about her family and so on, you're likely to find she's just like any other woman. EIJI YOSHIKAWA, The Art of War Sources: [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. From Google [3] http://www.archives.gov... [4] http://globalfundforchildren.org... [5] http://www.listland.com... [6] http://www.forbes.com... [7] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... [8] http://people.emich.edu... [9] http://www.usdebtclock.org... [10] http://www.goodreads.com... and http://www.notable-quotes.com... |
37 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | 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 |
30 | 5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00006-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Unfortunately, it is clear that we agree. Furthermore, it is obvious that this disagreement stems from a misinterpretation of the term "concealed carry handgun laws", which I defined in round 1, contrary to the definition that my opponent never provided, but was apparently assuming. For clafification, the definition that I provided, and which was not responded to, was that a concealed carry handgun law is "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry. " My reasoning for assuming my definition are as follows:Without any "concealed carry handgun law", there would be no laws regarding concealed carry. And just as there are no laws regarding changing lightbulbs, everybody would be free to concealed carry (or change lightbulbs, whatever floats your boat) in absence of a "concealed carry law". Upon introducing such a law, the only way to go is downhill - in other words, if we can concealed carry with no limitations when there is no law, it follows that any "concealed carry handgun laws" would result in the opposite of that - restrictions on concealed carry. In light of this reasoning, it is more sensible to label the PRO side as arguing the position that concealed carry laws (which restrict concealed carry) reduce violent crime, and to label the CON side as arguing the position that these laws increase violent crime. Thus, our mutual agreement should result in a CON vote. Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate. Not only did it result in a debate with no clash, but by choosing a resolution that was vague and undefined, my opponent could choose to agree with whichever side I picked. In other words, since the resolution is so vague, had I argued that concealed carry restrictions decrease crime, he could have easily said "I agree with that! " This ambiguity is harmful to debate, and is another reason to vote CON. In conclusion, I have established that the vagueness of the resolution and definitions provided (or not provided) by the instigator essentially render fruitful debate impossible. Additionally, if you define "concealed carry handgun laws" as I have, for the reasons I provided, our mutual agreement is agreement with the CON side. I therefore urge a CON ballot. |
8 | b1869884-2019-04-18T13:49:38Z-00001-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [49] Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [134] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [8] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [59] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women"s liberation." [113] Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [31] [32] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [49] Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed. According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." [142] A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. [166] Abortions that late into a pregnancy are extremely rare and are often restricted by state laws. [164] According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything. [135] [145] Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces maternal injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions. According to Daniel R. Mishell, Jr., MD, Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, before abortion was legalized women would frequently try to induce abortions by using coat hangers, knitting needles, or radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists. [150] In 1972, there were 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortions. By 1976, after Roe v. Wade had legalized abortion nationwide, this number dropped to two. [7] The World Health Organization estimated in 2004 that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in developing countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult to access. [11] Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility. A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. [159] [160] A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." [3] The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. [122] The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. [22] A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. [14] Women who receive abortions are less likely to suffer mental health problems than women denied abortions. A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. [158] Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC), and researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health all concluded that purported links between abortion and mental health problems are unfounded. [152] Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term. Some fetuses have such severe disorders that death is guaranteed before or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly, in which the brain is missing, and limb-body wall complex, in which organs develop outside the body cavity. [12] It would be cruel to force women to carry fetuses with fatal congenital defects to term. Even in the case of nonfatal conditions, such as Down syndrome, parents may be unable to care for a severely disabled child. Deborah Anne Driscoll, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, said "many couples... don"t have the resources, don"t have the emotional stamina, don"t have the family support [to raise a child with Down syndrome]." [9] Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence. A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence. [114] [73] Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child. 42% of women having abortions are below the federal poverty level. [13] A Sep. 2005 survey in the peer-reviewed Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they had an abortion found that 73% of respondents said they could not afford to have a baby, and 38% said giving birth would interfere with their education and career goals. [19] An Oct. 2010 University of Massachusetts at Amherst study published in the peer-reviewed American Sociological Review found that women at all income levels earn less when they have children, with low-wage workers being most affected, suffering a 15% earnings penalty. [136] A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [75] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [50] Abortion reduces welfare costs to taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency, evaluated a proposed anti-abortion bill that would ban all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and found that the resulting additional births would increase the federal deficit by $225 million over nine years, due to the increased need for Medicaid coverage. Also, since many women seeking late-term abortions are economically disadvantaged, their children are likely to require welfare assistance. [129] [130] http://abortion.procon.org... |
47 | 1733bf39-2019-04-18T15:25:58Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Since my opponent has forfeited this round I cannot make a rebuttal, and can only hope that they will come through in the next round. |
50 | ba23bc61-2019-04-18T16:33:13Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | How should we fix the economy? -- Part 2 I suppose I'll replicate your style, and go through my positions one by one.Position 1: Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hourFirst, we know that the vast majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers, but breadwinners. The CBO report placed teenagers at 12% of those who would be benefitting from a higher minimum wage of $10.10 (1). Using that same figure, $10.10, we now from the Economy Policy Institute that 85.5% of those 21.3 million workers -- 16.4% of the workforce -- are above age 20 (2)(3). Moreover, we know from the CBO that 60% of the benefits would go to workers earning less than three times the poverty level and would lift about a million people out of poverty.But you may be wondering: why $15 an hour? Here's the reason: $10.10 is simply adjusting for inflation, but is not nearly enough for these low-wage workers to sustain a living. While productivity has nearly doubled since 1980, median hourly wages have flatlined, and we've seen them fall amid the recession. At this point, they're rising at slower rates than they did prior to the crisis. Indeed, a higher minimum wage would mean some job losses: that's inevitable. However, not only do we know for a fact that workers have been much more productive than they've been given credit for -- and thus it would actually be a good investment on behalf of business owners -- but as even the CBO points out, this policy would generate a stimulus, as these workers consume with their new incomes. The net positive effect would, undoubtedly, offset any negative impact from raising the minimum wage.Position 2: Extend unemployment insurance. There is no evidence that, amid a demand crisis as we now find ourselves in, that unemployment insurance is a job killer. In fact, it has an extremely high multiplier effect -- that is, dollars tend to change hands and stimulate the economy. But why? Well, if you're out of work, this is virtually your only source of income, and you have to consume in order to survive. Make no mistake, I do not want people to live off unemployment insurance, and certainly there is a point in which we would want to draw a line as to how far these benefits extend. However, we are nowhere even close to the point at which people would have an incentive to collect benefits, rather than look for employment. Simply put, it gives people the time to look for a job that suits their skills, to perhaps seek training so that they can acquire a higher paying job -- which largely results from structural unemployment, when their skills are outdated -- and to survive in their interim. Moreover, failing to extend unemployment insurance, as the U.S. Congress has just done, leaves 1.6 million people in truly dire straits. Not only that, but how will they be able to participate in the economy without any source of llivelihood? Position 3: Eliminate the sequester Indeed, some of these cuts were rolled back in the Ryan-Murray budget, but the big winner of that deal was the Pentagon. The fact of the matter is, this is not a time for austerity, so with any cut we run the risk of destroying jobs. If you want to reduce the federal deficit, there are several other ways that we can do that -- eliminate deductions, cut the Pentagon (which is a bit different than cutting elsewhere, which I'll address later), address health care costs, improve the employment outlook, etc. -- that are far and away more efficient and less destructive than a $1.2 trillion, across-the-board nightmare that was designed to be a timebomb. Position 4: Cut the military budget This position is a tad difficult to explain as a stand-alone, but for now, I'll do myself the disservice of explaining it by itself. Indeed, austerity right now is a poor choice, largely because the economy is still depressed, wages and prices are sticky, and interest rates are in the zero lower bound. However, we must acknowledge where most of the gains over the recent years went. Who benefitted, for instance, from the U.S. Government funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a credit card? Defense contractors. In fact, we spend more on national defense than the next twelve countries combined. We could easily remanuever funding for the Pentagon and direct it elsewhere. And, yes, that may mean some job losses in the short run. However, the multiplier effect for defense is much lower than, say, the multiplier effect for unemployment insurance and education. Therefore, so long as the funds are spent elsewhere, we'll experience a net economic gain which will more than offset the job losses. Position 5: Fund a stimulus If I were thinking ahead, I would have combined cutting the military budget, raising taxes, and funding a stimulus, but obviously I was not. So my apologies to the readers for this confusion. Ultimately, the chief problem that we face is lack of demand, propelled by an outgap resulted from a subprime spillover. Even business surveys attest to this fact, with the most common primary problem faced by businesses cited as lack of sales, not overregulation or overtaxation. To this end, espeically in light of what Krugman and others have written about the stimulus package being about three times smaller than it should ahve been, I believe we need a larger stimulus to offset the loss of consumption from the Great Recession, that will address the fact that state aid has been cut, putting teacher's out of work, that 1.6 million people lost their unemployment insurance, that the U.S. is lagging in terms of STEM jobs, science, technology, and early-childhood education, and infrastructure. Acknowledge that this stimulus will work toward both investment and consumption, directly employing people and putting money into the hands of people who will actually spend, ensuring both short-term and long-term economic health. Position 6: Enact a Carbon Tax on PollutersTo be candid, we know that the Exxons of the world -- significant recipients of government subsidies -- will not crash and burn from a carbon tax. In fact, most studies demosntrate that these companies could and would absorb it (4). At the same time, the gain from this tax would be negligible. It's simply a way of the government levelling the playing field, promoting a green economy that we'll ultimately need with the looming threat of anthropogenic climate change, and in the process, generating revenue to fund green technology et al. and work toward repairing the economy in its current state.Positions 7 and 8: Raise taxes, including deductions, and and eliminate oil subsidies We know from the data that tax rates are near historic lows, and exceptionally affluent individuals such as Mitt Romeny were able to pay 14% on millions of dollars in income, whereas a poor family would pay a sales tax on everything they earn, for they consume with the entirety of their income. This is largely because of a tax preference for capital gains, relative to ordinary income, which I find to be exceptionally unfair and to benefit people not who work exceptionally hard for their earnings, but who are affluent enough to invest billions of dollars with little effort. The same goes for unwarranted deductions such as the carried interest loophole, and billions of dollars in subsidies to the already well-off oil industry, many of whom are capable of lobbying politicians to maintain their breaks. These are the real welfare queens. Position 9: Re-regulationWe know that the financial crisis of 2008, along with the crisises of the 1800s, 1929, 2007 and 1986 were largely a function of deregulation. A significant move in this direction was Bill Clinton's Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which repealed the Glass-Steaggall Act, a 1933 law that separated commerical and investment banks and prevented bankers from taking on too much leverage, in the process becoming de facto casinos. Without skipping a beat, just that happened in the years leading up to the crisis of 2007: banks overleveraged into subprime mortgages, which culminated not only in huge losses for them and a giant taxpayer bailout, but a spillover effect into several other sectors of the economy. That's the reason we're having this debate, actually.Position 10: Public Option A key problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it doesn't do much to introduce competition into the health insurance market, which is needed if you want to maintain the private model. As a result, large insurance companies can operate as de-facto cartels and artificially raise their prices beyond what they ought to be (though they're declerating nevertheless). Adding a public option would improve quality and reduce health care costs, thus reducing future deficits and covering people unable to access health insurance after many GOP governors refused to expand their Medicaid systems.Position 11: Student Loan Debt and Universal Education $1.2 trillion in student loan debt is frankly unacceptable, and burdens an entire generation of students to indentured servitude. Private sector debt deflation is part and parcel of why the economy is so bad right now, actually. Private debt precludes participation in the economy, and weakens future prospects for consumption. Universal education is an initiative taken on by many European countries -- e.g., Norway -- many of whom have made great strides toward eliminating childhood poverty as a result. At a time when jobs in STEM and others fields are increasingly important, I find it critially important to ensure that education is acknowledged as a public good. That mentality, in my view, will pay dividends in the long term.1. http://www.cbo.gov...2. http://s3.epi.org...3. http://www.pewresearch.org...4. http://www.nytimes.com... |
42 | cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00001-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Hockey is better than soccer Time for the rebuttals :) Starting at the top Longer games Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Break times/ toughness Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Easiness to learn Soccer might be easy to learn, but that takes the talent level out of it. Everybody knows how to run and kick a ball. It is very simple. But not everyone knows how to skate or or how to stickhandle. The fact that not a lot of people can do this makes it even more fascinating to watch. You are watching people do things that not everyone can do. Injuries Hockey might have a lot of injuries, but that is just part of the sport. That is how you know that hockey is much tougher then soccer. Occasionally you get players like Todd Bertuzzi who are way to violent ( i guess that's how i could put it without using colorful language :) ) those players are punished with suspensions from the games ( sometimes the rest of the season, and on one occasion a guy was kicked out of the NHL) and heavy fines. Take Shawn Thornton for example. He was suspended for 15 games ( should of been longer) for coming up behind Brooks Orpik, knocking him to the ice and punching him. (knocking him out). He also forfeited $84,615.45 in salary. Faking an injury is worst then the real thing. When you fake an injury you are wasting every ones time, and not to mention making a full of yourself. Goalies It takes more talent and accuracy for a hockey player to score a goal then it does a soccer player. Goalies are very flexible and also take dives. Just watch a game and you will see. They often go into the butterfly position which is like a split, and occasionally go down into a full split. Goalies have a lot of skills ( and guts) to be able to stop a puck moving at 95-118 mph. Plus being able to keep an eye on the small puck and knowing were it is every second of the game. A lot of hockey players use black tape so it is harder for the goalie or any other players to see the puck on the stick. Soccer goalies do not move that much either. And the ball is much easier to spot then a puck. http://espn.go.com... |
30 | e81cbf00-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00000-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | On Campus Concealed Carry Please do not vote on this debate. My opponent and I have agreed to repost it for voting soon. |
22 | 8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00014-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous "islands" of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state. |
11 | f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00003-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Drug Use in Sports My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating "game" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of "cleaning" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he "naturally" had 40"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has "given my blood the legal "boost" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. "25 There is one way to boost an athlete"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. "By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. " There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality. |
47 | ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Not Be Required Thanks!Point 1Con claims that my research is outdated, however fails to explain how the date is relevant to the majority of my contentions. In fact data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides a good look at trends in homework (HW) for the past three decades, and concludes that today's students have had about the same amount of HW over the last 30 years [1]. This means all of my studies are relevant. I presented studies that collected data from more than 10,000 students nationwide between 1990 and 2002 [2]. The TIMSS report is from 2007 and covers 59 different countries [3]. Is research from the last 8-20 years really that off base? Con would have to prove that the amount of homework assigned then vs. now is drastic enough to make a difference, but he won't be able to.Con states that my research only includes a small portion of the population, and therefore this research is not valid. However this negates the very own research he presents. First, almost all of the "pro homework" studies cited by the CPE is research from the 1950s to 1990s, making Con's claim about my allegedly outdated research null and void. Second, Con does not prove that those studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason to believe that the pro-HW studies are any more valid. Con's very own source: "Information from international assessments shows little relationship between the amount of homework students do and test scores.""Kohn says... there is no conclusive evidence that homework provides any benefits—either academic or nonacademic—to students." "Homework also has potentially negative associations, one involving students' economic status.""Teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework.""Lower-achieving students may take more time than higher-achieving students to finish assignments" [3]. Indeed it would appear there is conflicting information, and there are some cases where homework could be beneficial. [ Re: Counterplan ]1A. Even if we accept HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will, in fact, be beneficial. 1B. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it ought to be required. Exercise, a healthy diet and a good amount of sleep are all beneficial to one's health and even education, as those factors affect one's academic performance [4, 5]. Schools can encourage these things in their facility, however in the home they rely on parents to do what's best for their children. As I mentioned in the last round, parents should determine or influence the way their kids learn or reinforce information in the home. If they want their kid to do homework, they can assign it or seek additional resources. In his Point 4 rebuttal, Con claims that HW is simply defined as "schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home" and my suggestion that it can sometimes be beneficial works as a concession. It does not. First, homework is uniform and I specifically advocated an assortment of assignments TBD by teachers, students and parents - not uniform HW. Second, Con must prove that homework ought to be required - that is mandated by the school/state. Again just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be required. Homework can be suggested, encouraged or even assigned, but not necessarily mandatory.Point 2My opponent claims that he "doesn't understand" how the backlash from parents over homework proves that homework is a burden on parents. It's self-evident. Parents complaining about the burden (to the point of going to court) proves it is in fact a burden. He then goes on to say that some parents don't mind homework, and claims he can cite court cases where parents have gone to court asking for homework and won. I would like my opponent to prove that he can cite court cases where parents have asked for more homework and won. He won't be able to, but even if he did, all this proves is that the parents who want homework should be able to give their kids homework, whereas those who don't shouldn't have to. Many parents secure tutors or prep classes for subjects and tests their kids need help with. This can replace homework for the parents who believe it is helpful, without placing an undue burden on teachers and other classmates/parents who feel otherwise. Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework, and in fact this was one of my contentions in the last round that Con dropped. We don't assign slower students longer school days, but we assign them longer homework days. Kids who struggle with their HW would spend a lot longer on their tasks than those who do not, meaning required HW is still problematic.Con requests sources proving that parents do homework: A survey from 2008 shows that 43% of parents have done their kid's homework [6]. It's nearly 80% of black and Hispanic parents who do their kid's HW one day per week, and more than 40% of them do it THREE or more times a week out of likely four assigned HW days [7]. It is around 36% for white students. This cheating does not foster independence, responsibility or honesty, nor does it provide any of the alleged benefits of homework to these students. My opponent has dropped my contention that each child has a different home environment. Whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to homework monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments. They cannot focus in their environments [8] which Con's own CPE source reiterates. Even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. My opponent claims that my research on the utility of homework is outdated (I've argued that his is outdated) and yet I also don't believe his citations account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information [8].Con argues it doesn't matter that teachers waste time grading homework because they know it is a condition of the job. That's fallacious circular reasoning. Just because something is a condition doesn't mean it ought to be a condition, which is exactly what I'm arguing (that it shouldn't be). I explained that teachers can use the time they spend grading homework to improve their own education (research, school or reading) or plan new and innovative lessons that provide more learning utility than homework. Point 3Con states that I have made the "unsourced" claim that by spending time on homework, kids are missing out on time spent on other things. Quite frankly it's ridiculous to ask for a citation on this self-evident fact. If someone spends time on X, they cannot spend time on Y. I'm not sure how that can be any more clear, but hopefully these sources will satiate Con's request [9, 10]. Here is another source claiming homework inhibits rest [11]. My opponent does not deny the utility of things like athletics, the arts, etc. but rather says they are provided in school (irrelevant) and that students already participate in after-school activities. But regardless of the amount of homework assigned, the time spent on HW interferes with other things whether it is rest, relaxation or other hobbies. Further, consider the fact that many older students work (or want to work) but can't as they must complete their "second shift" of homework after school. Most adults are not forced to complete work at home after their work day. Even if they were, adults have the option of getting a different job. Con advocates less HW but cannot ensure that less HW (and meaningful work) will actually be provided by the teachers that students cannot opt out of. Point 4Con writes, "Voters should NOT buy my opponent's claim that it encourages cheating and creates a gap between the intelligent and academically struggling because this is once again bare assertion on my opponent's behalf." 1 - Parents often do their kids homework (which is cheating).2 - Students cheat because they fear penalty of not completing their assignments from teachers and parents.3 - Grades, rather than education, have become the major focus of many students [12]. Computers can make cheating easier than ever before, and kids have unmonitored (and often unlimited) access to computers in the home. Students can download term papers from the world wide web. They can also take pictures of math calculations that not only provide the answer, but how they got the answer so the student is able to regurgitate it without any effort or learning on their part. Studies show cheating is more common than ever before [13, 14] which is obviously most problematic in the home. Research shows the lowest amount of students admitting to cheating on written assignments is 84 percent, and some data shows it as high as 95 percent [15]. ConclusionCon's point that homework can sometimes kinda sorta maybe be beneficial to some people does not mean it should be mandatory for all. Outside influences have too great an impact on the alleged benefits of HW. Students, parents and teachers can ASSIGN homework, encourage it, grade it but not REQUIRE it given all of the problematic variables. This allows for HW's benefits but also accounts for its problems.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org... |
46 | 5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00003-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net Neutrality Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away. |
27 | 90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00001-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws I guess I must take care of more of your bull first. *sigh* 1. Again, I in no way said, or am saying that poverty does or does not help gun violence. That is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps in addition to loosening gun control laws, we should also help impoverished cities that so happen to be riddled with gun violence. However, this is irrelevant. 2. You said it yourself. America is different. We shoot each other a hell of a lot more than other countries do. Perhaps it's the culture, or the media, or whatever Moore is pointing his (huge) fingers at at the time being. But it still should be known that we are different with gun violence. I agree, when some other countries (besides Switzerland and Germany) increase their gun control, gun violence does go down. However, all the statistics that are relevant to America, show that less gun control means less gun violence. 3. True at the extent of I-am-not-sure-of-why. As stated above, ask Michael Moore. However, I do know that what I say is true. All the evidence backs me up. Less gun control means less gun violence. ---- Now your turn: In your conclusion, find statistics that show that more gun control leads to less gun violence in America. I'd love to see it. ---- MidnightSpecial will probably not do the above requested. He has a knack at floating around the issues and making decent points out of that. However, given already three chances, he has never managed to dispute the fact that less gun control means less gun violence. If you support gun violence, then by all means, vote for MidnightSpecial. However, if you're tired of all the shootings, death, obstruction of liberties, and gun violence, do the right thing. |
17 | 23734551-2019-04-18T15:01:29Z-00000-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Cannabis My opponent dismisses evidence of marijuana being a gateway drugs as nothing but drug war propaganda despite that the research has been done within the last five years. My opponent then makes a statistical fallacy claiming that if marijuana was a gateway drug then we would have millions of hard drug users. This shows a clear lack of understanding of what a gateway drug is. A gateway drug is by definition a drug that when used increases the 'likeliness' of moving to harder drugs. An increase 'likeliness' doesn't mean that you are guaranteed or likely to have it happen, it merely means that you are significantly more likely to have it happen. For instance driving while intoxicated greatly increases the 'likeliness' of a fatal crash yet it the majority of drives of intoxicated people don't end up in a crash. And just like intoxicated driving increases fatal crashes, marijuana increases hard drug use. My opponent then uses a highly bias source http://www.auburn.edu... that is so out dated that majority that the info in it is presently known to be false. My opponent then criticizes my source for marijuana's impulsiveness for also studying cocaine. If my opponent would have read through the source he would have realized that cocaine and marijuana were tested separately for impulsiveness. My opponent has made overgeneralizations of marijuana's anti-cancer effect. He fails to realize that the studies are not conflicting. Marijuana is shown by actual research that it can worsen certain cancers, despite having compounds that help with other cancers. Not only has there been countless studies showing that, but science has even found the mechanic for how marijuana can worsen cancer and increase likeliness of infection. Such overgeneralizations of marijuana's benefits promoted by pro-marijuana campaigns often can cause people to self medicate in situations where it is harmful and sometimes even lethal to do so. (Oh woops, the marijuana worsen cancer in your situation, sorry that we didn't mention that marijuana worsens certain cancers. Oh woops, you got an infection because you were self medicating on marijuana, sorry that we didn't mention that marijuana is an immunosuppressant, in fact we just dismissed that as drug war propaganda.) How about instead of giving overgeneralizations of marijuana, you recommend people to consult with their doctor first so they don't do something that may end up harming or even killing them. My opponent claims that "the increasing use of marijuana if anything is another reason to legalize it." By this logic, if something like cocaine or heroin had increasing use among youth then it would be a "reason to legalize it". The logic that an increasing use among youth is reason to legalize it, is flawed on its most fundamental level. But there is one thing I agree with my opponent on, arresting users has negative effects. Instead I prefer higher fines and less jail time. The higher fines are a stronger deterrent to marijuana use than arrest and it doesn't increase the prison population. My opponent source http://mic.com... doesn't mention anything about lower obesity. As for everything else mentioned in the source, these are merely reason for medical marijuana, and as such have no reason for recreational marijuana use. I would like to make it clear that I am not against medicines that use marijuana, I merely believe it should only be prescribed by a doctor since marijuana is harmful. Something being harmful doesn't mean it doesn't have a medical use, horrible poisons and venoms are being used currently to make drugs and fight cancer, yet this doesn't justify people eating poison or injecting themselves with venom. My opponent has failed to give any good reasons why marijuana should be legalized recreationally. In conclusion, marijuana has many medical properties that should be research and used in medicine. This medical marijuana use however does not justify recreational use. It is proven in the states like Colorado that legalization of marijuana increases use, and with that increase there will be more people harmed by marijuana. This harm is very real and more is learned about it each day. This harm is proven by science and affects people who use it. This harm outweighs any benefits of legalization, and is the primary reason why I don't support the pro-marijuana campaign. I feel that I have proved my reasoning and that there are real reasons to be against recreation marijuana. With that I conclude this debate. |
31 | 6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity A two line response? Oh this is gonna be fun! Incoming text wall!My opponent's only sentance just says a few random downsides to obesity. However, this is going to be massively insufficient of a reason to show, as con put it in the first round, "that there must be ways to stop the obesity." If she cannot fulfill her own BOP, then you have to affirm the resolution. My BOP, as stated and agreed upon by myself, is to show why it must continue. I contend that without obesity, as well as leading causes to obesity, the world would end as we know it. My argument shall make one assumption that my opponent may challenge, if she so desires. That assumption is that Fast food restraunts are a leading cause to obesity, and that so long as fast food restraunts exist, obesity shall always remain constant. I feel like this is a perfectly valid assumption, and that it would be highly counter-intuitive for con to attack this assumption, but if they so wish to then they can do so. Anyway, I shall proceed with my case now.>> ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY <<It's easy to look at a McDonalds and just think "Wow, what a bunch of fatties" or, in my teenage boy case, "God I'm starved. How much money do I have?" without actually considering the worth of that very fast food joint. Fast food is, arguably, a major factor in the American economy. More than 3 million people work in the fast food industry in the US alone[1]. Even in a bad economy, McDonalds has reported an increase in third quarter by nearly 11 percent[2]. The fast food industry spent 4.2 billion dollars in 2009 on advertising alone[1]. Spending on fast food has been rapidly growing ever since the '70s. In 1970, Americans spent 6 billion on fast food[3]. Fast forward 30 years, to 2000, and now Americans spend 110 billion in just that year alone[3]. On average, americans spend more money overall on fast food than they do on things like personal computers, computer software, new cars, and higher education (such as colleges and universities)[3]. American spending on fast food is more than the combined total of our spending on things like movies, books, magazines, newspapers, videos, and recorded music[3]. McDonalds ALONE is responsible for 90% of job growth in America[3]. The impact of places like McDonalds on the work-place are almost indescribable. To quote Eric Schlosser:[3]"In 1968, McDonald's operated about one thousand restaurants. Today it has about twenty-eight thousand restaurants worldwide and opens almost two thousand new ones each year. An estimated one out of every eight workers in the United States has at some point been employed by McDonald's. The company annually hires about one million people, more than any other American organization, public or private. McDonald's is the nation's largest purchaser of beef, pork, and potatoes - and the second largest purchaser of chicken. The McDonald's Corporation is the largest owner of retail property in the world. Indeed, the company earns the majority of its profits not from selling food but from collecting rent. McDonald's spends more money on advertising and marketing than any other brand. As a result it has replaced Coca-Cola as the world's most famous brand. McDonald's operates more playgrounds than any other private entity in the United States. It is one of the nation's largest distributors of toys. A survey of American schoolchildren found that 96 percent could identify Ronald McDonald. The only fictional character with a higher degree of recognition was Santa Claus. The impact of McDonald's on the way we live today is hard to overstate. The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross." Without places like McDonalds, I don't feel like it would an understatement to say that as a society, economically and socially, we would be devastated. >> IMPACT OF REMOVAL OF FAST FOOD <<In order for my opponent to successfully refute my case, she MUST advocate for the removal of fast food restaurants, otherwise I'm still fufilling my BOP by advocating them as a massive benefit to our economy. Without the fast food industry, everything that's connected to them takes a massive blow to profits. Advertising, the meat industry, toy companies, all of these things would be hurt. Needless to say, the current recession we're in right now would be nothing compared to what would result from removing fast food from our nation. If our economy is trashed, then the global economy will further fall into the dumps. With our economy in the dumps causing the world economy to go into the dumps, then we would be forced to look to other means to feed our people. As Lieutenant Colonel Bearden writes[4]:"As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. ... [T]he stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of (WMDs) ... are certain to be released. ... [O]nce a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. ... Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes. ... [R]apid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed."Thus, if we remove fast food to remove obesity, then we trash our economy. If we trash our economy, then the world economy is trashed. When the world economy is trashed, as Bearden explained, we get nuclear war. Nuclear war will always outweigh harms of obesity on two levels:1. Nuclear war would mean the essential end of the world and destruction of all man-kind. The death of a few from obesity related illnesses will never compare to the extinction of the human race.2. Even these obesity related illnesses can be treated and/or cured. Death is unique in that it cannot be treated back for or reverse in the way that most diseases can. Once you're dead, you're basically dead and nothing can really be done about it. This means that we are going to need fast food if we want to survive. Which means that obesity needs to stay around. Which means that you have to affirm the resolution. Vote pro.Sources:[1] - http://www.livestrong.com...[2] - http://www.montrosepress.com...[3] - http://www.nytimes.com...[4] - (Liutenant Colonel Bearden, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000,http://groups.yahoo.com......) |
6 | 574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit! |
10 | 3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00000-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines At this point, the debate is over. Everything CON posted in the last round was plagiarized from this link: . https://www.chop.edu...One need only to copy and paste one of these argument into Google, and you come up with this source, which lays out everything. Con has not even taken the time to remove the headings, or the links allowing a visiter of this site to go "back to the top" of the page. Con has not provided a single argument of his own or responded to my arguments. He cannot possibly win this debate. |
6 | 844ad89d-2019-04-18T12:18:26Z-00000-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Community college should be the first college people attend Questions: 1. What is the value that 4-Year colleges have that you are comparing? Is it the monetary cost or something else? 2. Are you in agreement that going to community college first is cheaper, or is that not your argument? I didn't quite understand what your argument against the cost was. If you could please answer these the best you can, I would be able to understand your argument better. Response: I understand He_Needs_Some_Milk_69 argument as that it is inconvenient to go to community college because you have to go to a four-year university anyway (please correct me if I misunderstand). -I agree that it is more convenient, but it costs more. I have shown that the College Board says that it is cheaper to start with community college. Based on price alone, it seems that it is beneficial to go this route instead of going straight to a four-year college. -I also found evidence for the argument that people who complete community college with an Associate's Degree have a higher chance of getting a Bachelor's Degree within 10 years (1). Although only 33% of community college students transfer to 4-year colleges, students who transferred with an Associate's Degree had a 48% chance of graduating compared to 35% chance for students who transferred without an Associate's Degree (1). I would like to know if there is something that four-year colleges have that isn't present in community colleges. Resources1. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu... |
18 | d7d66693-2019-04-18T18:51:34Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Catholic Church Same Today As It Was In Early Christianity Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I will focus on answering some of the points/arguments he brought up in R2. My opponent seems to think that if he succeeds in proving that the Catholic Church has not changed in any and every single way, then he wins this debate. However, I have never claimed this at all. Moreover, my opponent has yet to bring forth any evidence or historical rebuttal against the original arguments in my opening challenge. Let us define 'Catholic Church': "The congregation of all baptized persons who share the same faith, the same sacraments, under the authority of the hierarchy, particularly the pope and the bishops" [1] More than simply a 'community of people', the N.T. makes it clear that the Church - apart from being an organization - is also a spiritual organism - a Mystical Body composed of members linked together through baptism. "So in Christ we who are many form one BODY, and each member belongs to all the others". [2] My opponent said: 'If one member dies, then the Catholic Church is not the same anymore.' This is true in the sense that change means development. But not in every sense. The Church is composed of both 'living' and 'dead' members and remains essentially the same body, even though one of Her members should die or split away. When a tree sheds or loses one of its leaves, it still remains essentially the same tree. The tree is also continually rejuvenating itself by growing new leaves. As does the Church, by continually receiving new members while remaining essentially the same 'tree'. My opponent states that the Catholic Church 'split in two' in 1054 AD and thus the Church is not 'the same' anymore. This is false. A careful look at Church history will conclude that it truly was the Eastern Orthodox which had deliberately chose to separate themselves from the Authority of Rome. The early Church was unanimous in declaring that the ultimate authority within the 'Catholic' Church was the 'Bishop of Rome' [3]. The Eastern Orthodox have splintered into dozens of nationally autonomous and independent 'churches', similar to Protestant churches, since the Schism. With no visible head, the broken up Orthodox 'churches' have not held an Ecumenical Council since 1054. The 'tree' simply had a member cut off Her in 1054, (unfortunately) but still remained the same united Catholic Church. My opponent argued that the Church renounced its position on the origin of man and went to an 'evolutionary doctrine'. I respond, and your source is the Sunday Herald? The Church has never 'renounced' its position nor has She ever taught evolution. In fact, She warns us not to hold evolution as proved, nor use it to explain the origin of all things; [4]. Here is the official Church position on the origin of man:"'The literal historical meaning of the first chapters of Genesis can not be doubted with regard to: the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man;... the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future redeemer."[5] Fact: Pope John Paul II did NOT renounce official church teaching in 1996, when he stated in a letter that evolution is 'more than a hypothesis" [6] C) Regarding the Crusades: My opponent offers no proof for his accusations (which is entirely off topic anyway). I read the web source he linked to, which attempts to prove how 'evil' the Catholic Church was during the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. With no source proof or historical references to back up its claims, it is a purely speculative read based entirely upon the web author's own personal opinion. D) The Catholic Church never lost its belief that Her lawfully ordained ministers can cast out demons by the power of God. If some members, including priests, do not believe in the devil or in the Rite of Exorcism anymore, it does not change what the Catholic Church has always taught and believed on this manner. My opponent asked me why I thought most his arguments thus far have been 'straw men'. Because I believe they have ignored, misrepresented and averted the three original arguments I brought forth about the Catholic Church in R1, which was what I originally sought to debate. Definition of 'straw man' here: http://brainz.org...... Again, thus far my opponent has failed to bring forth any historical proof or solid rebuttal against my three original claims about the Church in R1. In the next round, I will put forth the historical proof for the Catholic claim of Apostolic succession, and also discuss 'Papal Infallibilty' if time/space permit. Thank you. [1] Catechism of the Catholic Church [2]]Romans 12:5;1 Corinthians 12:13 -28; Ephesians 4:1 [3] http://www.freerepublic.com...... [4] Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Humani Generis; 1950; (para 5.6) [5]The Pontifical Biblical Commission decree; Pope Pius X; June 30, 1909 [6]http://www.cin.org... |
42 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | 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 |
45 | 8bcc4a46-2019-04-18T17:43:27Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Gettin rid of pennie's Reasons why pennies should be eliminated. Other Countries Have Successfully Done without TheirsMany other countries have eliminated several small denominations from their currency with no major impact on commerce. New Zealand, for instance, dropped their one and two-cent coins over 20 years ago. They have, since then, eliminated their nickel as well.We"ll Conserve Natural ResourcesWe"re more aware today than ever that the minerals we mine aren"t going to last forever. Ceasing production of pennies will lower our consumption of copper and zinc, as well as the fuel and energy required to mine and process it.It Will Increase in ValueHistorically, dropping any minted coin out of circulation immediately increases its value as a collectible. So, in 2020, all those pennies laying around the house will be worth more, and will continue to gain value as time passes. Many collectors are already starting to collect lots of pennies, taking more out of circulation.Nobody Misses the HalfpennyThese days, very few individuals realize that the US once had a half-cent coin. That"s because it was taken out of circulation in 1857. Given that phasing out this denomination had virtually no impact on commerce, there"s no reason to think that dropping the penny will have any serious side effects. |
43 | c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00007-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Which water is the best water My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We're always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we'd be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water. |
37 | 1ecb133c-2019-04-18T17:49:01Z-00003-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell phones in school Hello, class I am here today to talk about why cell phones should be allowed in school. One of the reasons cell phones should be allowed is because we have freedom of speech according to first amendment news 2011. Cell phones also allow students to do more than text. Students can use cell phones for calendars, calculators, and even stopwatches. Also if you have a cell phone with music on it if we were allowed to listen to it then students might do better in school because music might help us focus. One of the biggest reasons why cell phones should be allowed in school is for safety utensils. Another good reason why cell phones should be allowed in school is so that students can take pictures of an assignment to remember to do it. What if one of your relatives get in a car accident or something and there trying to call you and you don"t answer because you"re in class the you feel guilty for the rest of your life. |
3 | bbd58885-2019-04-18T13:27:03Z-00000-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Should Homeschooling Be Allowed ya ya ya. blah blah blah. argue argue argue. this is getting boring. i'm gonna stay low for a while |
45 | 3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Stop the Minting of the American Penny I believe that the American penny, for many reasons, serves no real purpose in our modern world, and we should cease minting it as soon as possible.First round is for acceptance only.Definitions:American Penny: the one cent coin currently used for the USD (United States Dollar, $).Mint: to make a coin. |
11 | fc4fa3b4-2019-04-18T18:14:47Z-00000-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens Extend arguments... I will re-post this debate in hopes that there will be a challenger who will actually post a rebuttal. |
36 | 7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00001-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is the hardest sport Golf challenges not only requires physical fitness but you need to have the strongest mental game to succeed in golf therefor having the hardest sport |
27 | 90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00003-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Gun Control Laws There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. |
23 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
49 | 30bb7b71-2019-04-18T18:53:31Z-00004-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | gcsd The resolution for those who can't quite understand the spelling of my "fellow" Brit; is should the subjects of Mathematics and English be compulsory for GCSE. GCSEs or GCSE equivilents as qualifications are mandatory for all students in the UK. Certain subjects are mandatory such as English and Mathematics. Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate why we should discontinue the practice of making these subjects mandatory. |
46 | 5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00000-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | Net Neutrality Actually, you have changed my mind. Now I gotta figure out how to concede. Good job! |
4 | 573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00005-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment I will let my opponent start out with arguments and definitions. Therefore my opponent is the affirmative and I am the negative. Please post. |
40 | 5662ebe2-2019-04-18T20:04:05Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | death penalty To explain the idiotic forfeit, my mom stole my computer which forced me to forfeit. Sorry about that. Give my opponent the conduct point. 1st, just because most Americans are pro-death penalty does not mean that we should do what they say. 139 countries having abolished it after using capital punishment for 10 or more years compared to 58 nations actively using it today. Just because the people agree with something does not mean it should be allowed! This is just an example which does not have to be true: If the majority of the people think that mosques should not be allowed to be built in all circumstances, does it make what they said right? This is a huge problem! People assuming that whatever the majority of the people believe, it's always right and that we should do what they say. 2nd of all, the concept that it deters crime does not account for many things. How does capital punishment save lives? Is my opponent honestly saying that because the USA allows death penalties that it prevents crime? Crime is the greatest in the USA even though the USA have the death penalty and executed the 5th most people in the world recently. Many people are not affected by the death penalty as to see that it depends on what kind of crimes they are but many people would rather be able to gain money, drugs, revenge, or something addicting by doing a crime even though of the risks. They don't think of the consequences but they just do it without thinking or considering the death penalty. Just because all of the people that you have said believes that the death penalty deters crime can not beat back the 87% of expert criminologists who say that the death penalty does not help deter crime at all and the 88% of the top criminologists who say that the abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on crime rates. Also For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9. Also all of the top 10 states with crime all have the death penalty. It's also not biased in the size of the state rather per 100,000 people. In 2008, 14 states without capital punishment were either at or below the national homicide rates. So all of your supposed "facts" in this contention are all wrong because they can't beat back all of these points that I have been showing to you. Also there can be and there has been wrongful executions. As many as 39 people in the U.S. have been executed from 1992 to 2004 because of the death penalty. 138 death row defendants were released since 1973 because of wrongful convictions and withheld papers. That is extremely unfair because of costing one's life just because of the death penalty. Even being in jail because of a misjudgement is better than being executed in the case of a misjudgement. Plus the death penalty is racially biased. 77% of death row defendants are executed for killing a white person but half of the victims are black. . I have so many more points I would like to make and also go into detail about many of them but I have to move on to the other contentions. 3rd of all, the death penalty doesn't actually give any closure to victim families. Sure, the victim's families may hate the defendants and want to hurt them but the death penalty doesn't actually help them feel any better. Let's take a look at Achilles when he lost his best friend Patroclus in the Trojan War. He was dissatisfied with all of the slaughtering of the Trojans and the torturing and killing of the killer Hector but was still empty until the day that he wept for an entire night with the killer's father. Sure, loss of friends and family members will always be a sad thing but the killing of the murderer doesn't necessarily put back what the people close to that victim have lost. The families will never totally recover and revenge by the death penalty is from the government is not going to put an "ending chapter to this mess". I also ask my opponent to tell me how many murderers in jail until they die have escaped and haunted the family. Also about releasing killers, would you give me some facts please? I have made my point that the death penalty has no significant effect and will never put an "ending chapter to this mess" on the people close to the murdered person. 4th of all, is justice served if he has to live in jail for the rest of his life? Yes! Justice is not better served by death penalty than living in jail for the rest of your life. Death is getting executed but life in jail till death is everyday torture knowing you will live the rest of your life in a cell. I would say life in jail till death serves justice better than the death penalty because if you die, you die. No more suffering, pain, hardships. None of the bad things or good things. But life in a prison cell until death is torture for many years to come. 5th of all, if God doesn't tell us to do the death penalty why should we do it. The fist two verses are from the Old Testament which is specifically God the Father wanted the Israelites to use capital punishment because there was no other way to do it. If you disagree with that statement, I bet you $10 (not $10,000 like Romney but $10 like Gingrich) thats you won't be able to find another way to punish a murder or death that is not capital punishment during their time which is an estimated to be after Ahmose and before Assyrians and Babylonians take over Israel and Judah. Also few people would use the capital punushment as the Old Testament says such as doing work on the Sabbath, false prophecy or making false statements about a woman's virginity. In the 3rd verse, it clearly doesn't mean a literal meaning. It means that Christians must not use their freedom from the Old Testament religious Law as an excuse to violate the civil law. We must obey civil authority, which is instituted by God, because of fear of punishment as well as conscience. The principles set forth by Jesus and the apostles restrict punishment to only that which is necessary to protect society and rather than giving. Jesus taught great principles for us to apply in our lives, rather than specific laws. Thus, his failure to specifically condemn slavery, capital punishment and many other evils should not be interpreted as approval of capital punishment. I see the mercy He showed to the woman caught in adultery as His rejection of capital punishment. However, Jesus never specifically repudiated capital punishment. Even if you want to go by the Old Testament which is totally irrelevant, the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 says "Though shall not kill." The original Hebrew word ratsach, translated as "kill" or "murder" could refer to either killing in general or unlawful killing (murder). This is only if you want to argure the irrelevant way. 6th of all, "it is constitutional" is not a good reason. The Constitution has been changed so much and is always debated about if a part is correct or not. Just because our current law says that doesn't mean that it's right. If a country's "constitution" says that slavery is allowed, is that right? There are many flaws in every country's laws and this is one of them. 7th of all, the death penalty costs and diverts much more resources from genuine crime control and more expensive than alternative sentences. Death penalty is not at all cheap but expensive. The death penalty does cost a lot and may be more than life in jail but it depends on the time. Death penalty costs a whole lot on a one time event, life in jail costs a little every year so that is why death penalty is more expensive because it's a one time event.I have negated all of my opponent's contentions and have made my own points in the crowded rebuttal of my 2nd contention. Vote Con! My sources are in the comments section because lack of space. |
46 | f4864a7e-2019-04-18T19:41:08Z-00001-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Here is a bit from the main net neutrality supporting site, savetheinternet. com, under the FAQ section. Who wants to get rid of net neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Which means it isn't just Virgin Media that's heading into this. They're followed by many other companies as well. Now, I know you might think, "Well, people can just switch to Embarq or one of the 'safe' IPs" But that wouldn't work exactly as planned. Why wouldn't Embarq take that opportunity to raise their prices? No matter how you look at it, we have to pay more. I know that sounds a bit greedy, but in times like this, with our economy as unstable as it is, this simply cannot turn out well. Otherwise, my arguments on the unethical nature of net neutrality still stand. I can understand if you don't intend to disagree with them, as well. As the consumer, I can't begin to think of a scenario where getting rid of net neutrality would be beneficial. Either way, I had fun. And it looks net neutrality is winning. I hear action was recently taken against Comcast. |
47 | abf49bd8-2019-04-18T16:32:16Z-00008-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework should be banned. I am hoping I understand your format right: I am arguing that the definition of schoolwork is incorrect as the homework is not actually required; A student chooses to do the work assigned to get something in return for a grade. It is only required that a student earns high enough grades to move on to the next, but they can technically get away with not doing the homework if they choose and stay in that grade. I only have 2 minutes so this is my first argument. |
17 | cdf789bc-2019-04-18T16:36:00Z-00008-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Decriminalizing recreational marijuana. I thank Con for instigating what I hope would be an enlightening debate. In this debate, I am arguing that 'Recreational marijuana should be decriminalized,' or 'Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is right.' Con, on the other hand is arguing that 'Decriminizing recreational marijuana is wrong' or 'Recreational marijuana should not be decriminalized.'As the rules explicitly state that the first round is only for acceptance or stating your position, I shall wait until the next round before giving definitions. |
11 | 23d69a69-2019-04-18T19:37:31Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Legalize all drugs Two rules firstly. 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of personal liberty. |
12 | 8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00000-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Schools give out free birth control pills I would agree with you, but you need to understand that not every young couple is going to have under-aged sex. Also, it's one's decision to have sex. If someone gets pregnant, its their fault and they should worry about it, themselves. The schools shouldn't have to be the ones to take care of that situation. It also gives the impressing that the schools think so little of you. "Welcome to our school! Now take these birth control pills, because we think the worst for you." Wait a second, I just thought of something. What about those who don't know what sex is? No, really, what about those who weren't taught what sex is. I don't know if every school has a sex ed class, but you have to factor in the fact not every kid is going to know about sex. Also, you would think the parents would be in the biggest rampage because of that. |
26 | fb47a749-2019-04-18T19:03:58Z-00002-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | For Elite Colleges, Standardized Tests Should Be More Important in Admissions Decisions Then GPA Re: Introduction Yes, we are discussing what colleges should do, rather than currently do. But since I am arguing that the way they currently do things is the way they should do things, what they currently do is relevant to this discussion. "There is absolutely no way to know what elite colleges actually consider important because that information is typically not release to the public (in much the same way a company would not release it's hiring policies to the public.)" Actually, that information is released to the public. They are vague, because they rely on subjective evaluation rather than some formula, but they still state what they consider important. "The single most important document in the application is the high school transcript. We look for students who have consistently taken a broad range of challenging courses throughout their high school careers. There are no score cut-offs for standardized tests: the median scores of admitted students on the verbal and mathematical portions of the SAT generally fall in the mid 700s, and ACT composites in the low 30s, but successful applicants present a wide range of test results. While there is no hard and fast rule, it is safe to say that performance is relatively more important than testing. A very strong performance in a demanding college preparatory program may compensate for modest standardized test scores, but it is unlikely that high standardized test scores will persuade the Admissions Committee to disregard an undistinguished secondary school record." -Yale "Because we believe it is the best forecast of what kind of Brown student you will be, what you have done as a high school student will have the most influence on our admission decision. In that regard, the transcript showing your courses and your performance in them is a key source of information, but no single part of the application can tell a complete story." -Brown "Also, we are talking about only whether GPA (a number) should have more of role than SAT score (a number)." Are we? Well then your argument that GPA (the number) should play a smaller role in admissions and SAT should play a larger role is logically invalid, since the actual GPA number has no role in college admissions. How could it be relevant? Different high schools use different GPA systems; there are 4, 5, even 15 point scales, as well as 100 point scales rather than a traditional GPA number. Not only that, but some high schools weight honors or AP classes when calculating GPA's, and some do not. Some schools grade classes on different scales (100-90=A, 89-80=B, etc. vs. 100-93=A, 92-86=B). And if we aren't talking about the raw number, then we must be talking about what colleges actually look at: grades in the context of the high school and the classes. If you are arguing against elite colleges using the numerical GPA, out of context, then you are arguing against a straw man, since they don't actually do that. Re: Argument 1. So, you're saying that the rarity of the score increases exponentially according to the bell curve. And that for admissions at elite colleges, chances of admission increase exponentially as the score increases. I didn't know that this was the case, but it seems fair enough. In this debate, I am defending this, the status quo, and it seems from your post that you also think that this treatment of test scores is reasonable. I fail to see the argument that test scores should play a greater role in college admissions in this part of your post. Re: Argument 2. You argue that colleges should use SAT subject tests to compare students taking the same class at different schools. Well, that is what they currently do. That's why most elite colleges require or strongly recommend SAT subject tests. I think that the role they currently play is just fine, and they should not be more relevant. SAT subject tests scores represent a students ability to do a laughably easy 1 hour multiple choice test. Grades in classes reflect labs, essays, problem sets, etc. In some cases, yes, SAT subject scores/AP scores may be a better indicator of mastery of a subject. However, mastery of a specific subject has little to do with success in college, especially at elite colleges. Many elite colleges don't even give credit for AP scores, or only give credit for a couple classes. They do so because the material tested for on the AP test is so different from the material of actual college classes at elite colleges. These elite colleges rightly see that mastery of irrelevant material should play a limited role in admissions. Instead, they look for how well you did in the classes that were available to you. Getting top grades generally takes effort. The best way to predict whether or not students will put forth the effort to do well in their college classes is to look at how hard they worked in high school. If they get all A's or almost all A's, it shows colleges that they are willing to work hard. If a student isn't willing to work hard enough to get A's in high school classes, how can a college know that they are going to do well in college classes that require much more work? Re: Argument 3. Here you say that a typical student qualified to study at MIT should have no problem with their AP Calculus class. I agree. Therefore, getting less than an A in a simple high school math class should be looked down upon in elite college admissions. But what about the AP test score? There are two problems with giving it greater relevance. One, a student may simply get a low score because they were sick, or having a bad day or something on the test day. Someone is unlikely to have this problem over an entire semester, making an evaluation based on grades less susceptible to random chance. Two, a student may not be able, because of school rules or the classes available to him/her or some other thing beyond the student's control, to take AP Calculus and similar classes before their senior year. Since AP test scores come in July, it would be impossible to use scores from tests taken senior year in admissions. However, grades, in the form of mid-year reports, can be used in admissions. Those who score well on things such as the AMC and AIME already do get a boost in elite college admissions. For example, International Math Olympiad contestants can get into pretty much any college they want. I completely agree that elite colleges should continue to use the scores on these test in admissions. Re: Conclusion 1.Here, you state that "Grades don't achieve any of these goals. All they do is tell us how well a student did in a class. For elite colleges, the answer is almost uniformly 'very well' so no distinction is made between students." 2.And that since tests are "capable of of objectively measuring a student's knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving skills" and "extremely fair to all individuals," so they should be given greater weight in admissions. 3.If you accept 1, then since students uniformly get top grades and no distinction is made among them, then you logically cannot be arguing for grades to be given less weight in admissions, since virtually no distinction among all of the top students is made. 4.Looking at 2, you argue that tests should be weighted more in admissions. But because of 3, you cannot be arguing that test scores should get more weight in admissions at the expense of grades. 5.Since you are arguing that test scores should get more weight in admissions, but not that grades should get less weight, logically, you must be arguing that test scores be given more weight at the expense of other factors such as extracurriculars. Therefore, since your thesis is that test scores should be given more weight in admissions at the expense of grades, this section is, logically, irrelevant to the discussion. Sources: https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu... http://www.yale.edu... http://www.b... |
40 | 75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00003-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | death penalty should the death penalty be allowed? |
36 | 4e738850-2019-04-18T15:44:04Z-00007-000 | Is golf a sport? | Ultimate Debate #4: Baseball is a Better Sport than Football (INTRODUCTION) Thanks for accepting. I do hope this will be fun and enjoyable. Well, I might as well start. (ARGUMENTS) (1) Football is, by nature, a physical game. The point of the defence is to physically tackle/prevent the other team's offense. That sounds all great, but imagine how many injuries come from this! I will present some facts from major league football leagues: " A new study by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine links long-term brain damage to subconcussive hits in football, meaning hits that don't even cause concussions. This is by no means a revelatory finding, but it is interesting in its method, and its potential implications. The study examined 67 players during the 2011 season and found from blood tests that the 40 players who sustained the hardest hits had unusually high levels of an antibody that is connected to brain damage. When they scanned the brains of those players, they found damage that was predicted by the antibody: "This positive correlation could be an early indicator of a pathological process that, with time, could perturb players' brain health," says Nicola Marchi, a professor of molecular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, who co-authored the study with Lerner colleague Damir Janigro and Rochester's Jeffrey Bazarian. "All football players have repeated subconcussive hits-throughout the game, the season, and their careers," he says, but without external symptoms of injury, the hits were hard to measure. The blood tests appear to offer an early warning system." It seems like the real gains to be made here are at the amateur levels, where the training staffs and doctors don't possess the same level of expertise as those working for the NFL. Perhaps these blood tests can complement on-field concussion tests and other evaluations of brain trauma." {1} So, brain trauma and other symptoms, including the concussions, of which 75% males {2} playing football will get concussions. That is ridiculous! But in baseball, that never happens, because it is a non-violent sport. Want to see just how violent football is? This is less of the head injuries but more of the other body limb injury: http://www.youtube.com... (2) Let's say you a rabid fan of baseball, and you are a rabid fan of football. Wouldn't it be better to be a fan of baseball because it is simply a longer game? I mean a whole 9 inninnings VS only 4 quarters of football. Look: "The NFL's popularity is all the more remarkable when you inspect the fare it has to offer each week on television. An average professional football game lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes, but if you tally up the time when the ball is actually in play, the action amounts to a mere 11 minutes." {3} So only 11 minutes of play? Baseball is around 2 hours without commercials. Bam. That's right. Two hours of what you love compared to 11 minutes. While it may not be such a good thing of a sport going on forever, it also sucks when you only get 11 MINUTES OF PLAY. I mean, You could get more fun from watching two monkeys wrestle. Plus it would probably last longer. There truly is no point in wasting 3 hours of your time for 11 minutes of action in 10 second bursts. Anyways, on to the next point! (3) "Recorded instances of baseball played outside North America came in 1874, when a party comprising members of the Boston and Philadelphia clubs toured England both playing cricket and demonstrating baseball. A further tour, by the Chicago club with the addition of various All-Stars in the winter of 1888–89, took the game to Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific islands. Returning via Europe and North Africa they played more demonstration games, including one in front of The Sphinx in Egypt." {4} Baseball is a much more appealing sport to international people. In the International Federation of American Football there are a mere 68 members,{5} compared to the 124 International Baseball Federation members {6}. While yes, the two sports are generally associated with the US and Canada, Baseball is more appealing to a worldwide market because it is quite similar to other sports, like cricket and tennis. (CONCLUSION) In conclusion I believe I have proven my point for now. Thanks, DDD(REFERENCES) {1} http://www.sbnation.com... {2} http://www.concussiontreatment.com... {3} http://qz.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org... |
9 | 188872ba-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00004-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Public School Students should wear School Uniforms They limit rights Yes the good old constitution the foundation of america and this debate Some opponents claim that uniforms are not a fix-all for the problems that plague schools, but instead, violate a student's right to express themselves, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a school in california, 73% of the students claim that their first ammendment rights were violated. After they signed a pettition the school went back to the old ways. The case Tinker v. Des Moines decided that students in a public school have a constitutional right to use their clothing, in this case black armbands, to express their opinions on controversial topics http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... |
6 | a9b17ef4-2019-04-18T13:54:31Z-00001-000 | Is a college education worth it? | Should The Age of Adulthood In America Be Changed When the accepted age of adulthood was set at 18, most jobs in America did not require anything more than a high school diploma. In essence, the government provided young adults with the necessary education to succeed in their world by ensuring that they could obtain the education to get them into the careers they need. Colleges, back then, were extras, for overachievers who wanted more. Thus, colleges were attended by those who had the financial means to afford it and the intelligence to perform at a high enough level to obtain a degree and become integral parts of society in its more important positions. In America today, however, most non-poverty wage jobs require post-secondary education. In today's society, the secondary school diploma is worth as much as a primary school diploma, and a bachelor's degree is worth as much as a secondary school diploma was worth a few generations ago Because of this, most young Americans need to attend college so as to be able to be a part of the middle class. The government, however, does very little if anything at all to help young adults attain college, and therefore, forcing young adults to fend for themselves, causing them to accrue large debts, and forcing college-bound students to work exorbitant hours in jobs where they only can earn poverty wages, because they don't have the degree that would afford them the opportunity to work in jobs that would pay decent wages. In short, the American government does not afford its young citizens the necessary education to succeed in today's world anymore, instead asking them to take the burden of getting their own education by themselves. The sad truth of the current state of American society is that the Millennial generation constantly gets blamed for acting entitled, when we only act that way because we are the first generation that hasn't had the basics afforded to us by older generations. We have actually had to work and pay to get the bare minimum. While individual parents have been pockets of hope, not everyone has a good set of parents. It is for this reason the free public education exists, and with the age of adulthood being pushed back a few years, free public education could be raised to include underclass post-secondary education. |
32 | 87602c6-2019-04-19T12:44:16Z-00002-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Compulsory Voting People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more ac... |
11 | ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00002-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, "A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2)." This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org... |
26 | a66887-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00000-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Selection for tertiary education should be entirely standardized and merit based. Extend all of my arguments Because my opponent has failed to meet his burden, which is proving the resolution categorically true, he has, basically, forfeited Also, the resolution specified that there should be no exception, and I have proved not only one but two exceptions |
39 | 342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00004-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The Minimum Wage should be increased. I concede. I do not agree with everything you wrote, but I acknowledge the facts. Voters, please vote for my opponent. I have been defeated. |
20 | f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00002-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Chocolate milk is healthy. Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a "feel good" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com... |
47 | 2439be89-2019-04-18T16:47:44Z-00004-000 | Is homework beneficial? | We need to get rid of homework Thank you for the discussion! However I believe you have confused your argument. Much of the proof you have offered suggests that increasing homework load is not beneficial. However, the crux of our argument is whether or not we should remove homework altogether. I claim that it is your burden to prove to me that homework itself is counter-productive, rather than an increased homework workload. For example, if I were to adjust the homework amount from 3 projects to 1, or have the homework assignments be reduced from 6 to 3, I don't believe many of your arguments hold.Before I address your points, I'm going to preface the fact that your personal stories are not strong evidence. You keep claiming that it is "real life evidence". So are statistical data, as they are also gathered from real people. Personally, I have had a great experience with my academic performance and homework load, but that shouldn't count as "real life evidence" enough to counter your example. Since you're making the claim that we should remove homework altogether, make sure your argument works for all students, not just you or your friends.[Point 1:] You make excessive claims. Please cite your sources when you make bold claims like:-> "Like I said homework does not improve your grade. Its how you were born and how you study."Source? Because my experience in college suggested the exact opposite. Perhaps you haven't been challenged enough in a class yet.-> "About most children in USA stay up through out all night doing most of their homework"A 2011 Study found that American High Schoolers only spend on average, 1 hour a day doing homework, so 7 hours a week.(Source: http://nces.ed.gov...) Your experience might be completely different, but it is not the norm.[Point 2:] The evidence provided is weak.-> "A study has been show to state that homework does not increase student percentile of passing there test. Basically to break it down test score in the NYC are remained flat and has been dropping each time during a new benchmark exam and children have been getting homework each grade and the homework increases."Your own evidence refutes your claim. From the very same article you linked:"Researchers from Binghamton University and the University of Nevada conducted a study showing that although homework may benefit some students"particularly high- and low-achieving students"it"s counterproductive for students who are average learners."The article says in the beginning paragraph that for some people homework can be helpful, and for others, homework can be harmful. Much of the article talks about changing the quality of homework to be useful for everybody, rather than abolishing altogether. It would stronger if you provided evidence that no homework improved everybody's academic performance.-> "Another study has been also shown that students who don't do their homework get the same average grade as most of the children who do most of their homework."Is this the article you are talking about? (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...)The study also says that there is a positive link between time spent doing homework and time spent performing on tests, so isn't that good marker of improving academic performance? The study also makes no claim about whether or not removing homework benefited students.[Point 3] Addressing Hypothetical Claims with Hypothetical SolutionsSince there is little factual evidence presented in the arguments you make based off of my second original point (the teacher's perspective), I offer similarly ungrounded counterclaims to show your argument holds little weight since it sways either way depending if the conditions are right. (AKA: Making a series of assumptions which cannot be shown to be held constant in every case).-> "That is the reason we have pre- exams and ready- exams to see what children need help on. You don't need homework to see how the well the teacher thinks your doing."But a teacher has to modify his/her course daily or however many times they teach per week. Are you suggesting that we have daily/weekly tests in lieu of daily/weekly homework? Wouldn't that defeat the point of removing homework?Another issue is that the longer time between each pre/ready exam, the longer the exam is going to take (since it cuts into class time). Nevertheless, you would always be removing classtime that a teacher could be spending teaching, thus reducing the amount of material that can be taught over a semester or a year. In terms of classes that have standardized tests, this is especially bad for your class as they might not cover enough material for the exam. And if you're thinking about accelerating the pace of the class, that also makes the class harder for everybody, which i believe is counter-productive.-> "Teacher give a highly amount of homework that children have to stay up to do some children attend after school and it wouldn't be fair for them to have 6 homework's because they would have to stay all night doing it"This is only problematic if it happens repeatedly. As I showed in [Point 2], this is not the case for most students (high school at least). You also assume that you couldn't explain your situation to your teachers, that you had no say in the completion of the assignments, that somehow 6 classes all assign heavy projects on the same night such that you're forced to spend all night doing it, etc. There doesn't seem to be a complaint here if there isn't a lot of homework.-> "Would you like it if you had three projects and later on you spend three full days doing it and you cant spend time with family on the weekend?"Again only problematic if it happens regularly. If it happens once in a while, that is common for most students. See previous point about real time spent working for most American students. -> "Lets say you did not know you had a typed up writing assiment to do and when you finished typing and you did not know there was no ink. What are you going to do? I bet you would say go to a library. What if your in after school and you came back at five o'clock. And your library closed at 5:00. Where is your time to print? Of course no answer. And everyone does not have a computer. And computers are expensive."There are two separate scenarios being presented in one paragraph. The first is a case where you suddenly and temporarily don't have the tools to hand in an assignment. The second is where you do not have the tools to do assignments, period.The solution to the first is easy. If I were that student? I'd ask to submit it by email. Or provide proof that the assignment was done and completed via said email. You could also ask others to print it. Or save it on a USB drive. There are a wide variety of solutions and assumptions being made here, so this case is moot.The second situation suggests it is not fair to assign homework that a student cannot complete (due to a lack of tools). You are correct. I would highlight a (non-comprehensive) list of assumptions you are making:- There is no method possible of getting a computer to use (library, school, friends, parents, work, etc)- You cannot explain your situation to the teacher or the school- The school does not believe you and lets you take the class and fail the grade- You basically have no way to control the situation in any way shape or form- There is no method possible of getting a computer to useAs you can see again, because I could add more information to suddenly make the issue much more easier to address, until either of us can provide factual evidence, the arguments are essentially hearsay.Hence I have demonstrated that the last 3 or 4 points you make are not a solid basis to suggest that we should remove homework.Looking forward to your response! |
47 | e2d7ec45-2019-04-18T17:00:50Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Teacher given HW does more harm than good 1st Assertion: Homework does put pressure on kids, but pressure is not always bad. Pressure can push people to do better, and that includes performance on tests. As proof, Let us look at some studies. "The results of such studies suggest that homework can improve students' scores on the class tests that come at the end of a topic" http://www.sedl.org... Another important note is that "However, 35 less rigorous (correlational) studies suggest little or no relationship between homework and achievement for elementary school students." http://www.sedl.org... It is somewhat difficult to prove that homework is the cause of lower test scores. Plus, this seems to vary from individual to individual. This explains why studies show different results. 2nd Assertion: There are many factors that cause stress and depression. Homework alone is not the reason. Also, stress can be healthy as well and is not all bad. "Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice." http://phys.org... 3rd Assertion: There are many factors that cause students to drop out. Some have family issues. Some are struggling with bullying, and others are struggling with their health or peer pressure. If students get too much homework, it is a bad thing. Since we are arguing about homework overall, one cannot say that homework is bad. Too much homework is bad, but moderation is key. Too much homework is bad, but that does not mean all homework is bad. 4h Assertion: Just as homework can take away from extra-curricular activities, those activities can take away from homework. Homework, as long as it is not just busywork, can serve as great review. Homework can also be used to further understand the material. Many students need exposure in the classroom as well as at home. Many times, students understand the material at school, but need to be exposed at home as well in order to reinforce this exposure and contribute to better comprehension. Having to juggle activities, family, and homework is a good life lesson. When students enter the "real world," they have to learn to juggle many things in their life. Thus, keeping homework and other activities aids in this very important ability to juggle what life throws at people. 5th Assertion: Cheating happens in life overall. There's cheating everywhere, but that does not mean get rid of certain activities. People cheat in games, school, work, etc., but we don't get rid of these things because they're a beneficial part of life. tress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... |
14 | 88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Sexual Orientation is a choice I have read the comments for this debate and I will not make it unfair by starting with my argument. I will instead use this round as an acceptance round. I suggest we simply get straight to the debate. |
49 | dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses "In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information." This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; "For 12 months, Rialto"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, "the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants," the study team explains." https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. "In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion." The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as "must arrest" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can"t tell an officer he can"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don"t we replicate that study in real life? |
47 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
26 | 9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00007-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers In order to give us each equal opportunity (giving each of us four rounds of debating), I will let my opponent make the first statements. |
Subsets and Splits