query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
36 | 2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00000-000 | Is golf a sport? | Golf is better than soccer. she assumed and you know what happens when we assume don't you ... yea and two years is a slight difference in age... a majority of america marries at least 3 years age difference. she should be prepared for everything and with that i strongly urge you to vote negative for todays round |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00023-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation. |
4 | 29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00003-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | All schools should bring back corporal punishment A society with raised aggression levels is more likely to have a President with raised aggression levels (especially when you consider that the President may be a parent). A President with raised aggression levels is more likely to press the red button. Therefore, a society with corporal punishment in schools is more likely to be obliterated by thermonuclear war. My opponent asks,"If [corporal punishment] didn't work then why would it have continued? "If human sacrifice didn't work, why was it continued for hundreds of years? If slavery doesn't work, why has it continued? If astrology doesn't work, why has it continued? If murder doesn't work, why has it continued? If assault doesn't work, why has it continued? My opponent not only has to establish a link between school shootings and a lack of corporal punishment, something he has thus far failed to do, but now he also has to do the same for gang rape. "For a union (liberal) organization such as teachers and living in a liberal society such as England it is AMAZING that 20% of the teachers would say they think it should be brought back. "Is my opponent aware that the UK had a right wing government from 1979-1997 (eighteen years! ), and has one again now? [1] The UK is a conservative country, and England even more so. The right wing Conservative Party received 36% of the vote in the last election, and the Labour Party 29%. Scotland and Wales are heavily weighted to Labour, so the difference in the share of the vote in England would be even higher. Teachers' unions are not party affiliated, and teachers are from across the political spectrum. My opponent cannot dismiss the opinions of the majority because he imagines he might disagree with their politics, and accept the opinions of the minority because he has a gut feeling that their politics might suit him better. "Being spanked has never been proven to cause violence when a person becomes an adult. "Corporal punishment has been shown to increase the risk of the victim becoming a wife beater in later life. [2]It has also been shown to lead to a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems. [3] I also refer my opponent back to the first round sources. Spanking has been proven to cause violence in children, and that is sufficient to condemn it. If my opponent has an issue with the methodology of any of my sources, he is welcome to tackle them individually. I trust that the readers of this debate will not give much credit to a blanket dismissal of scientific studies. "Yelling at a child causes more mental damage than spanking. "Unwarranted assertion, but irrelevant, as I am not claiming that yelling is a useful alternative to corporal punishment. "However, a parent who calmly spanks a child after explaining why the child is being spanked and does so only to create a foundation for other primary methods of discipline (such as Time Out) is never going to develop a pattern of violence in the child. Never"Assertion without evidence. The scientific literature I presented in round one on spanking would suggest otherwise. "The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that spanking can stop a child from misbehaving in the short-term. "Using a blog as a source is a bad idea. Cowing a child in the short-term does not outweigh damage done in the long term. The American Academy of Pediatrics,"urges parents, educators, school administrators, school board members, legislators, and others to seek the legal prohibition by all states of corporal punishment in schools and to encourage the use of alternative methods of managing student behavior. "[4]My opponent is right that there are (many) other factors involved in crime. I think it will be difficult for him to show that lack of corporal punishment is responsible for an upsurge in school shootings, gang rape and assault. My opponent does not say why it is not okay to hit other adults, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. Corporal punishment has no place in a humane society. It is violence, it is psychologically damaging, and it is detrimental to society at large. [1] . http://www.thuto.org...[2] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] . http://www.cmajopen.com...[4] . http://moourl.com... |
15 | da638ba9-2019-04-18T13:02:33Z-00002-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal testing should be banned Animal testing should be banned. And then we should start testing on who? Humans? Like any human would allow that. Obviously those who disagree with animal testing don't like the fact that animals are being tested on but they have completely disregarded the fact that human lives have been saved by testing on animals. Who else are we suppose to test on? Other humans? It comes down to three choices, we either stop animal testing and medical science slows down by a long shot, we stop animal testing and start testing on humans which would probably speed up medical science, or finally we just stick to animal testing. There are no cons to humans when it comes to animal testing unless you're extremely obsessed with good morales. Firstly animal testing has aided in the process of finding cures. If there was no animal testing, medicine as we know today would not be the same. Even the simplest things like a cut could have killed you if it weren't for animal testing. Animal testing has played a role in every major medical advance in the last century. Take that away and imagine how slow our medical advances would be. Many would die before we even found a cure. Is that really worth saving a couple of animals. Insulin was discovered by the use of animal testing. Without it, many people with diabetes would be in trouble. More than 80% of animals tested are mice an other rodents. 0.15% of animals tested are monkeys. Is a rodents life really worth more than the hundreds of thousands of human lives that it could save? http://www.pro-test.org.uk... |
19 | 5d03cab1-2019-04-18T18:06:19Z-00004-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage should be legalized Hello Ladies and Gentleman and welcome to this debate on the legalization of Gay Marriage. I believe that Gay Marriage should be legalized! I believe this for the following reasons: 1. Marriage is a civil right - Everyone should have the same right if they pay the same taxes ect 2. Marriage is no longer a lone religious experience. All marriages by law are civil marriages they are then later referred to religious marriage. 3. Gay Marriage supports the family - You can not turn someone straight so why keep that person from creating a loving family that can enrich our society. 4. Religion and state should be separated - Regardless of what your religion says you should not enforce it on people who do not share your views or religion. 5. I believe it unfair that you can demand a right and deny another the same right. 6. Civil Unions are NOT the same. 7. Gay Marriage does not ruin marriage- Divorce and cheaters do. How can a man who cheats on his wife be allowed to marry and then remarry after breaking the contract of marriage without being punished were a gay couple who have been in love for years who are perfect for each other be refused? It does not make any sense! |
39 | 9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00004-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the US ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 wage hike is unfair and indeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post explains "Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren't well qualified to determine what's an acceptable lifestyle for other people." [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer. American Enterprise Institute notes the reason: "disproportionate effects by location." [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a "one-size-fits-all" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes.Contention II: Effects on businesses.If it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. "Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won't have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it's becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation." [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4]These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Moreover, inflation becomes a concern for businesses as well. Economic theory indicates a wage hike will facilitate inflation. [14] A study by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald notes, "Higher labor costs faced by employers are pushed onto customers in the form of higher prices." [15] The vast brunt of the cost will be passed to consumers, meaning higher prices. [20] If prices rise, this not only creates inflation, but also effectively negates a wage increase. [35] More money earned, but more money is required to be spent. The effects won't be short-term, either. A study by Burke, Miller, and Long affirms " increase in labor costs can spur inflation and undercut the real minimum wage, precipitating an endless spiral." [16] It will become a spiral of minimum wage degradation and inflation.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7]With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [11] [12] [13] Moreover, these effects aren't simply short-term. The detriments are definitely long-term. [21] As it intends to solve for poverty, we can't raise the wage. Sanderson claims "The biggest anti-poverty program we have in the U.S. is getting somebody a job." [23] With disemployment effects prevailing, getting a job is difficult, and the subsequent deterioration of poverty is nonexistent.In fact, the experts in the field (labor economists) overwhelmingly agree raising the minimum wage will facilitate job losses (73%) and that these losses will be disproportionately laid on the poor (68%). [10] Those disproportionate victims are often teens, as has happened previously. [18] This essentially makes teens unemployable, and entry-level jobs become less available for those just entering the workforce. [29] Furthermore, in a team of 100 economic researchers, two-thirds found disemployment effects of wage hikes. [30] The consistent trend of employment detriment studies from wage hikes extends all the way back to 1957. [33]Contention IV: Extended detriments.Obviously the effects already mentioned aren't positive. But those effects can have extended consequences. For example, raising the minimum wage will increase crime, because of unemployment. When teens (who are disproportionately affected [19]) are unemployed, criminal activity is often subsequent. [17]Furthermore, raising wages can encourage outsourcing [22], which sends jobs to areas where labor laws are less strict or negligible. [24] This wouldn't be good for the US economy as the labor for not only employment but profits to US businesses and the GDP would be gone. [31] Another asset is illegal aliens, who tend to be hired on because of wage law abuse. [34]Another extended impact would be technological replacement. When faced with the dilemma of either raising wages or using technology to replace human labor, the latter is desirable. [25] This has happened time and again, and lowers job opportunities for low-skilled workers. This trend has also resulted in wage inequality, another thing political rhetoric of wage increase claims. [26] It's illogical to assume more jobs would be created when humans are simultaneously being replaced.Another talking point for wage hike advocates is poverty. Yet, instead of reducing poverty as they advocate, poverty is actually worsened. [27] A primary reason for this is competition [28], but the result is obvious; raising wages only facilitates more poverty. Alongside the poverty, companies would likely cut benefits such as health care. [32]Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms business in a multi-faceted manner. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Fifth, there Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources in Comments |
23 | 4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00006-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: "Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands." "Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient's consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A." ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... "Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing")."~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: "Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws." ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, "Die with Dignity". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, "Which one?". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement. |
29 | 2025b712-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00005-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | Issues of Immigrations Although I'm a United States Citizen, I will gladly stand upon those that are not and, I am willing to argue why immigration in the U.S. is a huge topic for debate. I will argue why immigration is good and why immigrants deserve a chance in the United States Of America. As we all know we are familiar with the term " The Melting Pot Theory" The melting pot theory is, people of many diverse cultures and diverse beliefs coming to America and assimilating the American belief way. The American CULTURE. We are here, in America to achieve a goal. Goals such as starting a business, serving in the military, becoming a politician, becoming a school teacher and many more goals. People not only want to achieve goals in becoming a school teacher but goals to live in a country that gives its people rights. Religious rights, freedom of speech rights, freedom to opinion and, freedom to dream meaning finding work. The United States provides that for those that have a goal in becoming a United States Citizen. And of course for those that are already a citizen because America is the land of opportunity. We seek for better and want better. America is defined by immigrants. America as it is today was first started by immigrants. So why forget them now? Immigrants are a good source of people for America because they strengthen our economy thus making out work force young. They helped us start businesses like Google, Yahoo, they have created industries in which had created jobs for Americans. So why back fire at them by throwing them off to the police sending them off back to their native land? Immigrants come in to this country not only seeking for jobs but also they come into this great country having ideas that creates big time Hits like Google and Yahoo. And sharing their great ideas with the American people, in which takes courage to share. Like Americans, immigrants work for a living to feed their families. Like American, immigrants work to buy clothes for their children. They do their best to give to their families like Americans. Active in hard labor because immigrants can't work in jobs like citizens can the worst part is some days they can't even find work, making the provider the provider .. less.. For most of the immigrants, they don't get paid the minimum salary, and some even having to work over time with out pay. The idea is not on that immigrants work harder than Americans the main idea is that immigrants are willing to work just as hard as the average American. Making that the American dream of living for immigrants. Anything from seeking work and making money to provide for their children is living the American DREAM. President Barack Obama, has stated in one of his Immigration videos that, " right now there are brilliant students sitting in class rooms around the world in great universities earning degrees in the fields of the future like engineering and computer science but once they finish school there is a good chance they have to leave our country, think about it intel was started with the help on an immigrant that studied here and then stayed here, Instagram was started here by an immigrant and then stayed here and we're giving them those tools/skills to succeed, but then we're telling them to start that business in China, India, Mexico or somewhere else and that's not how industry is grown in America that's how our competitors get new industries." Immigrants are indeed very important in America. I will keep arguing against con and prove to con why immigrants deserve to be in the land of opportunity. Thank You |
16 | 44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00003-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drug Commercials I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent. |
33 | ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00006-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | The World Should Become Vegetarian Vegetarianism is much more "natural" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life. |
34 | ff4caa4e-2019-04-19T12:45:03Z-00015-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Caring for children and relatives is a driving force in our societies One of the fundamental powers driving human behavior is the care for relatives. Throughout life, individual tries to earn a fortune not only because he wants to have a shelter and some food, but also because there is a social circle of other people around him – a social circle that he cares about. Most of the people assert that family is something that is of higher importance than anything else in their life. A person devotes time to his family, helps in various situations; finally, he wants them to inherit his wealth after death. In a way, a child is a continuity of one's life and a person is happy to leave his property the children or other relatives. We believe that if individual was to care only for himself he would never want to work as much (and by this, create value for society as well). Ability to generate value not only for him but also for his children gives more incentives for an individual to work harder. This is beneficial for the whole society, because more work creates more value overall. However, by imposing an inheritance tax we reduce the incentives for a behavior which is beneficial for society. We discourage people from doing it. When tax is taken, money will end up somewhere else. But it is certain that people will never be as motivated to work for unknown person's good as much as for their own relative's good. To sum up, by taking away a share of person's property after his death, we are indirectly preventing him from creating value for the society, because he will know that what he earns will be spread over many strangers instead of relatives after his death. |
21 | cf5179a4-2019-04-18T14:23:26Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming I affirm and thank 101 for this debate. == My case ==C1) Existence of a scientific consensus on climate changeThe scientific opinion on climate change is clear that mankind is probably the main cause of global warming. In fact, a survey has concluded that there are no scientifically relevant studies that provide a direct rebuttal to the idea that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [1] The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all agree that the evidence for human-caused global warming dominating climate change is overwhelming and clear. [1] "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." [2] A study by Doran (2009) found that 82% of climate scientists with a master degree or Ph.D agreed that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [3] NASA agrees, and notes that "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position . . . Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." [4] A report written by 28 scientists representing 13 governmental agencies has stated, "The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases." [5] C2) Human-induced increases in carbon dioxideAll scientists agree that carbon dioxide traps heat. That carbon dioxide traps heat is basic physics. Excess carbon dioxide traps heat. Harries, et al. (2001) finds "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect" at the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide and methane trap heat. [6] The debate on carbon dioxide comes down to "climate sensitivity," defined as the increase in global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. All serious skeptical scientists and supporters of global warming agree that -- in a default state -- the climate sensitivity is likely 1.1 degrees Celsius. [7] The argument is about feedbacks. What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are mechanisms -- such as clouds and volcanic activity -- that amplify or dampen the effect that carbon dioxide has on temperature. The mechanisms that amplify the effect are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are called negative feedbacks. [8] I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate. Many studies agree. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value." [9] This is demonstrated in the below graph: In simpler explanation, a feedback amplifies the effect of a forcing -- in this case, carbon dioxide. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is the "dominant" method in the literature, one can conclude that the average climate sensitivity is four degrees Celsius. [9] It is empirically demonstrable that climate sensitivity is at least three degrees Celsius. CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to 400 ppm -- a 40% increase. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. And temperature levels have increased precisely to this amount. [10] Below is a graph that showcases how much sensitivity different studies have found. [13] The following picture demonstrates the evidence that shows a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees Celsius. It is well-known that CO2 levels are increasing. The below graph shows a direct rise in CO2 levels. [11] Much of CO2 increase is human-induced. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million." [12] C3) Paleoclimatology suggests that mankind causes global warmingMultiple paleoclimate records suggest that CO2 has a direct effect on climate change. According to many studies, after the beginning of the Cenozoic Era 65.5 million years ago, carbon dioxide has been the dominant climate forcing. [14] The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. An ideal example of this is the Vostok ice cores. "There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." [15] The below graph documents the correlation between increase in CO2 concentration and rise in temperature over 700,000 years. In fact, 2014 was the warmest year since 1400, suggesting that increased human activity drives climate change. Therefore, I conclude that human emissions increase temperatures, and, thus, mankind is the main cause of global warming. == Sources ==[1]: http://www.sciencemag.org...[2]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3]: http://tigger.uic.edu...[4]: http://climate.nasa.gov...[5]: http://downloads.globalchange.gov...[6]: http://skepticalscience.net...[7]: https://mises.org...[8]: Roy Spencer, "The Great Global Warming Blunder," p. 54[9]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov...[10]: https://www2.ucar.edu...[11]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[12]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[13]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[14]: http://www.columbia.edu...[15]: http://cdiac.ornl.gov... |
16 | 784aea60-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Team America Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka |
16 | 5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | Drugs Should Stay Illegal Well that was not appropriate behavior, M'kay? Now drugs are bad M'kay. Marijuana is also bad M'kay? You don't want to be stupid, M'kay? |
30 | e81cbf1f-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00006-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | On Campus Concealed Carry I agree to everything that my opponent has mentioned in his challenging statement. Please enjoy the debate! |
49 | f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00004-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras As my opponent stated, today"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be "fair". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered "legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of "right" and "justice" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of "justice". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their "unjust" (according to you) punishment. |
44 | 470152ec-2019-04-18T17:24:48Z-00002-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | This House would cancel Christmas once every ten years I will now move into my opening substantives in favour of cancelling Christmas once a decade. Substantive I: Absence makes the heart grow fonder We all know the differences between how Christmas is in books and fairytales and how Christmas ends up in real life. In the books, Christmas is always a time of joy and peace, with people sitting around an open fire, children happily opening presents and gratefully rejoicing at the sight of their new trinkets, and general all-round happiness. Does this actually happen in reality? Rarely, if ever. Recent studies suggest that most families will have five arguments on Christmas Day, with the first one typically starting at 10:13am [1]. This happens because we don't appreciate it enough. We're used to seeing the mass celebration aspect of Christmas come round once a year without fail. For this reason, Christmas just becomes this perpetual source of anger, resentment, and stress. But this is not in keeping with the real spirit of Christmas - an argument you will hear a lot of from Pro - and we feel that Christmas has lost its way. If we were to cancel all the hoo-hah once every ten years, and have an 'off-year' (the Christian festival wouldn't be cancelled, the state would just treat it like it treats Hannukah or a similar holiday - i. e. , basically ignoring it), we would learn to appreciate Christmas more. Fields in crop rotation always have a fallow year, to give them time to rest and regrow. Why shouldn't Christmas be the same? Substantive II: Christmas has been hijacked, so we should give it back So many of the traditions which, in public consciousness, are deeply ingrained with 'Christmas' are not Christian in the slightest and are merely pagan and national customs which have been added to a pre-existing Christian festival. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about Christmas Trees, or carol singing. There is no Royal Christmas Message in the Bible. And gift-giving is kept to a minimum, with presents only given to the Baby Jesus - not everyone. So what we can see is that the traditional, pure, true, 'vanilla' Christmas has been horrendously violated over the years. We have taken Christmas away from the true Christians, most of whom acknowledge that the holiday has become far too consumer-focussed (see next substantive). Therefore, once every ten years, we should let Christmas return to its roots and let the real Christians (not just people who are Christian so that they receive Easter Eggs and presents) have their holiday back. Nine out of ten years, Christmas would operate as normal, as we acknowledge that permanently cancelling the non-religious aspects of Christmas would have devastating consequences. But that doesn't mean we can't have a natural Christmas occasionally. Substantive III: Modern consumerist Christmas is unhealthy Christmas has become too commercial - DDO has already agreed on this therefore we will take it as true for the purposes of this debate [2]. 54% of people think that Christmas is 'overrated'. 40% of people say that Christmas is just an excuse for time off [3]. Therefore, we have established that Christmas has lost its way and is far too centred around the commercial aspects and not around the spiritual or even the moral aspects. We believe that this is unhealthy because it encourages a culture where people can simply expect to be showered with gifts twice a year (including birthdays). This holiday, along with Halloween (which Pro would cancel completely, but that's for my next debate), encourages people - particularly children - to simply expect presents. This is borderline extortion on the part of those whose money and time is simply being demanded. It is too much to ask to permanently strip back the consumer aspects of Christmas in one fell swoop, that much Proposition accepts. But Opposition must equally accept that this consumerism is a bad thing and contributes to the theft of Christmas from the Christians (see previous substantive). Therefore, we should have a non-consumerist Christmas once every ten years. This will encourage the other Christmases to be less centred around presents, though I will elaborate on this in my next speech. These are our first three substantives in favour of the cancellation of Christmas once a decade, though more will be included in R3. I wish you bah humbug and hand you back to Opposition. I'm going to revel in the irony of debating Christmas in June by going outside and running through the sunshine. [1] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] . http://www.debate.org... [3] . http://www.eauk.org... |
37 | 8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00002-000 | Is cell phone radiation safe? | Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good I have also experienced that myself don't own a cell phone which I'm glad I don't anymore. I realized how much time I was spending on my device, I started staying in my room all of the time I wouldn't eat food, I wouldn't really talk to anybody and this became a habit every day I got home I got straight on my cell phone, and it became an issue I always made sure I had my charger, a backup charger, my ear buds etc. I was isolating myself from others, which does lead to depression. I get you on when you said that they can be used for emergency purposes which is a really good point, I think that out of all of the technology and people around you sure enough they will have a cell phone on them, simply ask for their help, no big deal right? "The presence of a cell phone while two or more people are talking face-to-face can generate negative feelings toward the person who has his or her device visible". From personal experience I find that very true, I cannot stand when I'm try to have a conversation with someone and they can go 5 minutes without checking their phone. |
12 | acbc3c8e-2019-04-18T17:45:02Z-00003-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in sex education classes. Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, "A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners." 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had "no impactson rates of sexual abstinence." [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org......[3] http://www.psychologytoday.com......[4] http://www.apa.org......[5] http://thinkprogress.org......[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...... |
1 | 863d3b02-2019-04-18T16:16:29Z-00007-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | should teachers carry fire arms you know i was hoping you would say that a good debater knows both sides of the argument. there things other then firearms that a teacher can carry such as mace, a taser or even a bat. just remember i know both sides i already know what you are going to say next |
34 | 2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00000-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good That's a real shame. .. I was looking forward to this debate. I thought it would be an interesting one. Ah well. |
16 | 9bf42280-2019-04-18T16:34:01Z-00001-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All Drugs should be Legalized. '"Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.[...] More than 12 million people reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically in 2010, that is, using them without a prescription or for the feeling they cause "' your source hasn't explained what the majority of the cases of overdoses are caused by , over-use which i think is the one and not knowing the purity which I don't think is the result , and there are recomendations for how much you should take always . 'Incorrect. Tolerance decreases with time, and so if you take a short break and come back to the habit you'll find that the chances of you overdosing is higher for the same amount. ' Actually i was reffering to a scenario when the person is continously doing it , than hes body is getting more tolerant to it even in your source about this it says 'Drug tolerance can be lower if someone has stopped using. The person mistakenly believes that he or she needs to use the same amount of the drug they were using before. Lower tolerance may cause a potentially fatal overdose. ' So when the person was using his body was more tolerant to the drug. 'I, personally, cannot get drugs where I live. They are not sold legally, I do now know anyone that sells them and I haven't randomly been offered them. I have however been offered alcohol and tobacco and can buy it without any difficulties whenever I randomly decide that they tempt me' And do you really think if drugs were legalized everyone in your area would start doing them ? wait a sec humans have been drinking alcohol for thousands of years there are theories claiming alcohol was used before bread , Humans had to drink a lot of alcohol because the water they had was dirty and full of bacterias that they didn't know existed , as humanity progressed alcohol stayed with us , Tobbaco is a different case because at the start we didn't know that it had bad effects therefore many people quickly got addicted and havent been very bothered with it , as we have learnt more about tobbaco the numbers of users were and are declining . 'Peer pressure is a powerful thing, it isn't choice,' Yes it is unless they are physically putting the drug into you , you are making the choice to do it . 'They may have been forced into it.' sure it could have but we don't see people litterly putting cigerrates in peoples mouths and stopping them from getting it out , It is quite rare to actually force someone to take a drug, 'It may have been their only way out of the gloomy darkness and they may have been thinking irrationally or not be mature enough to understand the effects. ' Just because you thought irrationaly doesn't mean you didn't have a choice , now that's a logical fallacy.' that you seemed completely void of all feelings towards those that I used to make my case while showing sympathy for those that support your case ' I don't like to use moral reasons , because they are not gone get you anywhere reduced risk of overdose is just a pro of legalization and that's why i sympethize with it. 'That's great; Now we have cheap, unsafe drugs on the black market.' . I explained before why the black market would fall or at least become slower , why would they buy unsafe drugs from such a place when they can buy clean drugs? 'Let's say I want to get some weed. I've not a clue where to start: I'd maybe contact my friend because I know he has a few friends doing the substance. I'd then have to contact those guys who live an hour drive away from me and see if they can sell me some or tell me who is the dealer and arrange a meeting with him' now what if you live in a place where not a lot of people do drugs , and you are underaged and you want to get some drugs there are likely to be no drug stores in the area and you would also have to travel far and try to find someone who will buy it for you. 'That's not an argument for either case, it isn't even an argument, it's accepting that all three results possible might happen. ' I never said it's an argument i was explaining that all 3 could happen , I think it is better than having over-populated prisons and tyrannical cops ' There is a difference going around the corner and buying beer and going to the next alley and buy something that is "dangerous and expensive". ' Actually i used that argument when talking that It wouldn't be as bad to be an addict and i consider that a pro. ' It is impossible to punish someone for killing themselves,' However many have been punished for attempting to kill themselves . 'you're not seeing the big picture. Let's assume that you're the government. You cannot accept selling a drug that has these side effects. But the resolution requires that it will become legal, so how do you propose to pass the notion to make Krokodil legal? ' Haven't I already talked a lot about Krokodil in my past arguments? I don't have to repeat myself on that one 'But the resolution requires that it will become legal, so how do you propose to pass the notion to make Krokodil legal? ' You change the constiution , and say that the use of any drug is legal and shall not be punished 'Does it matter? If I pointed a gun at you and told you that there is only a 6% chance of it shooting you in the face would you allow me to pull the trigger?' How is that any relevant to what i said ? that's a completly different scenario . 'but I didn't understand this argument nor how it relates to the topic. Would you mind rephrasing?' Because the delears are not making much money any more it is less attractive for them 'All these will drive the usage up.' i already said that the numbers might go up or stay the same and that there are many factors like religion , age etc 'Addictiveness is what makes it dangerous, that's the issue we need to fix.' and that is why i said apart from it ,,,, . Conclusion - My opponent has failed to use any strong arguments against legalization . |
7 | 18a26ffe-2019-04-18T14:23:17Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Quiz before Vote Americans have a responsibility to know the topics or people that they are voting for. Also laws are confusing and people have voted incorrectly before because they misunderstood what they were voting for, or against. To make sure that Americans understand what/who they are voting for, they should be required to pass a short quiz on the issues before voting. If they fail then they can be given information written by both sides and if needed can have someone read them this information. Then they will be allowed to vote. It would be important to set up safeguards against people being swayed one way or another if they needed assistance understanding. It is important that each American have a voice and that there voice is accurately translated through our voting system. |
12 | 6bf018ce-2019-04-18T15:42:47Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women It is not the role of government to coerce it's citizens to fund what boils down to an obstruction of free market exchange between two consenting individuals. You have two major issues with you're position. First, if we Americans are truly free, the person who produced birth control should have the right to sell his or her product at whatever price he wishes. Then, a second party who wishes to purchase the birth control, can make an evaluation on if the utility of the product, in this case, birth control, is greater than the utility that could be otherwise provided by the money. This is part of being a free citizen. Beside the fact that a free person is able to interact with other free individuals without a third party interfering (in this case, the government), there are market issues. The lowering of the price of long term birth control artificially with government enforced price ceilings causes as an effect a mismatch between the utility provided, so consumption of the product (birth control) increases. To make this simple, would you go to the doctor more often if a visit costs you a dollar, as opposed to if it cost you $300 a visit? What if it costs the doctor $150 dollars to take a patient for an appointment? If people are going there because they suspect they have a very minor ailment (they feel tired that day, etc), that creates a problem, where there is a gap in financing that must be paid by a third party. This is what is going on here. Now people are consuming at a great that is artificially increased. Now, if you want the government to enact this by subsidizing with taxpayer money, I don't think I have any right to tell those people how their money should be spent, they earned it. If you expect them to just set a price ceiling, then who would want to produce at a price that would, more than likely, cause them to lose money. Why would I run a business that just loses me money? Then you have a shortage in the supply of long term birth control. Now either very few people will be able to get birth control, or the government has to produce it (either by paying someone or in-sourcing it). Once you enter that arena, where the government (with no efficiency motivation by profit), takes over major industries (pharmaceutical production), you have full blown communism. I could go on and on, but until I get more details, I'm going to think that you didn't fully consider the implications of what you are asking for. Even if it does provide a net positive outcome for society, the United States is a government that was founded on the idea that a government gets it's authority by the consent of a free populace. Once the government starts coercing people with the threat of force (you go to jail if you don't pay taxes), along with a monopoly on force (the military), it's not a free country. I don't think free birth control is worth being subjected to a communist government. |
28 | 936e7b82-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00000-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Should prostitution be legal Prostitution should be legal for a lot of reasons. A good example of prostitution working in a civil society is the Netherlands. Prostitution has been legal for years in this country and the people has benefitted from the tax revenue generated from prostitution. Many people say prostitution should be illegal for religious or moral reasons. This is a false premise to ban prostitution. The urge for sexual reproduction is inherent in all men. Those men who lack the skills or time to court women and engage in sex should not be denied their sexual instincts because the government deciding prostitution is illegal. Some argue that prostitution is derisive to the women who work in the industry. Allegedly many legal prostitutes are forced into their work and have no choice in the matter. The Dutch engineered a solution to this by providing social services and protection to the prostitutes working in the country's many red-light districts. If a Dutch night walker feels under pressure from a pimp and not acting under her own choice she would have many resources available to her. In a country with illegal prostitution these options do not exist. In Sweden the government has tried to fight illegal prostitution by prosecuting the men caught in the act rather than the hussy. Then they offer the call girls alternative education opportunities to reeducate them and reintegrate them into moral society. The man on the other hand must endure the difficult legal process and face the possibility of paying fines and doing community service/Jail time. While it is not surprising the Swedish socialist government would opt for such an extreme measure it nevertheless highlights why neither side of the exchange should be punished for paid sexual favors. While many men enjoy a good go-around with a slankpop once in a while we should still raise our children to avoid such behavior. |
39 | ce0a06c8-2019-04-18T13:05:11Z-00000-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The minimum wage should be raised So my opponent"s first few arguments against my point that I could be arguing about adding a one cent increase to wage and that people wouldn"t deter from hiring such people, is that someone would prefer someone with 7$ to 7.01, and that because the concept of price and demand, it would be true for any amount. But this shows that my opponent doesn"t understand the concept of minimum wage, someone wouldn"t be able to hire someone for 7.00 if the minimum wage is 7.01. The only way this would make sense is if he was arguing that it would deter employers from hiring workers because they would want to put the money into something less expensive, but my opponent did not make that argument, therefore disregard it. And even if we are arguing that it should be raised period, that means that 0.01 still falls into that category. Now let"s look at my opponent"s calculations since my opponent is arguing that if we increased the wage by 0.01, then the increase overall for 2.1 million employees would be 43,680,000. This is obviously not a huge ramification for a company like walmart, if you look at the type of money the company posses, and the owners and investors. Labor is one of their primary liabilities so it"s not at all shocking. . " Then my opponent claims that my point about education and other things doesn"t fall under livable, but that is exactly what I said which my opponent neglects. I"m not saying that these things fall under livable, I"m saying that people deserve more than what is just livable solely for being humans. Also education is not a luxury, by definition it"s the state of great comfort and extravagant living, which education doesn"t ensure. Then my opponent says that if I don"t donate my income then I basically want companies to pay charity on my behalf. But on what grounds does my opponent say this? I do donate, and it"s ridiculous for my opponet to assume that I don"t. "Pro will need to provide a citation of the case in question where a mother who works as a fast food worker while raising a family perished due to the fact that the wage she was being paid was in fact "unlivable". CON used the same standard of judging whether income is livable with the same measurement. Therefore my opponent is a hypocrite for saying that his measurement of livable works while my definition using the same standard doesn"t. Thus I do not need to provide an example since voters will see the hypocrisy my opponent has committed. "I invite Pro to revisit point 3 in my first argument and to at least observe the first 2 pages of the cited source, as these are direct refutations to this claim. " We both cited evidence that contradict each other, therefore we need to say which one is better with reason, or they cancel out. And my opponent didn"t provide any reason, except says to read 2 pages from a site, which is not how someone types a card. You can"t just copy and paste a website and tell someone to read it, you take the evidence out of the website and paste it and give the source. Therefore both evidences are cancelled out. "The minimum wage affects 100% of the labor market. " In that case it does matter because my opponent used the 4% point to make it seem as if the minimum wage increase didn"t matter, but now he just provided information that did make it matter. "If raising the minimum wage created positive economic growth, and we could raise it to whatever we pleased, why stop at $15? Why not $20? Why not $2,000? " Oh please! I did not expect this type of argument but I"ll refute it anyway. To put it simply, my opponent is basically saying that if something is good because of a factor, why not do it indefinitely? Therefore if it"s good to drink water, why not do it indefinitely? The reason for that is because the person would drown. Therefore my opponent did not provide a good argument since water is a necessity for living but yet someone can"t drink it indefinitely. |
28 | 6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | prostitution should be legal conclusion: prostitution should be legal :) |
19 | 6335cba3-2019-04-18T12:35:45Z-00005-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legal. |
43 | 8a2c0d8d-2019-04-18T17:34:59Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | FDR was not a great president. Con Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote ConCon Vote |
10 | 1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk. Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard. This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases. |
45 | 540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service In this last round, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify some major issues and prove why you should vote for me. Firstly, I will refute, weigh the significance of controversial arguments, address the burden, and, finally, conclude. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Rounding My opponent has brought up in their refutation to my argument about economic harm that she did not feel the need to formally reply to my argument because I "did not cite where" my "facts are where from" (This grammatically should be "were from") . That is a sorry excuse for what is truly a lack of a refutation for my argument. He/she moves on to saying that my source is from 1990, and then because of that completely rejects my argument. There are better ways to refute this than just pointing out an outdated source (which has no relevance whatsoever and doesn't disprove anything). He/she then moves on to give examples of a merchant saving and losing 2 pennies. However, the example that my opponent provides is what I like to call a utopian example. It's perfect, and it just seems to work out. However, not everything will perfectly balance out like this. Here's a counterexample: A merchant owns a store. The price, after tax, comes down to $11.88 and it gets rounded to $11.90 since it is a cash purchase; the merchant gains 2 pennies. However, the next person buys an item that totals to $11.91, and it gets rounded to $11.90; the merchant loses one penny. When simple math is done, it can be shown that, in this example, 1 penny is obviously lost. Not every transactions will perfectly counteract each other as my opponent suggestions, therefore, multiply this imperfect transaction by hundreds of thousands occurrences a day, and you will lose, more or less, $600 million a year, as Raymand Lombra puts it. Refutation 2: Minting Cost In this refutation, my opponent responds my point by stating that my point is invalid because the minting price is worth more than the face value, even though it is lower than what he/she originally said. I have 2 responses for this. 1) I strongly disagree as this does not disprove my point whatsoever since the manufacturing value has declined since 2011. It has been on the decline, and since it is 1.7 cents, it is only a loss of .7 cents per each penny. Why should we get rid of the penny if we lose 3 cents on each nickel as they cost 8 cents to mint (http://blogs.wsj.com...)? My opponent's logic is to get abolish its creation and circulation because it costs more to manufacture than its actual value, so why not get rid of the nickel as well since it is more of a loss than the penny? 2) "Thus what we have with the penny and the nickel is the last, residual restraint that the government actually faces when it manufactures money. This money, this petty change, actually costs something to make. Which would be precisely why we should insist that the United States keep making it. It can remind the country of how properly to conduct monetary policy. When market signals say you are pushing too hard, stop it. The real economy will respond by getting back to what it does best, which is roaring." -http://www.forbes.com... If you don't want to read the article, it basically says that pennies are good for the economy, especially since they are made out of a semi-precious metal, because it will not get overproduced, thereby meaning that having a higher manufacturing value is actually a good thing, turning and capturing my opponent's point. Refutation 3: Charities Pro brings up that I am the actual one dancing on this one, however fails to back that statement as well as simply asserting that his/her quote is not contradictory without an explanation. He/she also misunderstood my logic. As I said, since pennies are worth less, people will donate more of them, totalling to a greater amount of money for charities. Sure, this is an assumption, but it's a logical one unlike the assumption made by Pro, who becomes a hypocrite by stating that I have no proof, hounding me for a source from 1990, and then using a source from 1992. Therefore, my charities point should get through. Refutation 4: Canadian Pro definitely does have the right to use international experience anywhere he/she pleases, however, as proved and agreed with by him/her, Canada and America definitely do have completely different economies (http://www.thestar.com...). The same goes for Australia. Therefore, Pro has conceded to this point. Refutations to Arguments: Refutation 1: Waste of Time Pennies are not a waste of time. No matter who, they always have a meaning, whether it is an emotional connection between father and son, mother and daughter, the ability to save someone's life from cancer when being donated to charity, or being lucky when picked up from the street. Also, see my refutation 2 above for a further refutation that applies to this as well. Saying that pennies are a waste of time is like saying that an abused dog is not worth saving. Refutation 2: Not Accepted for all Purchases My opponent's second argument is that pennies are not accepted for all purposes. I completely agree, in fact this is common sense. But this argument was just a waste of time in that it is not tied in and plays no role in the scheme of things. Refutation 3: Bad for the Environment Saying that pennies are bad for the environment is a bold, overreaching statement. Sure, pennies are bad for the environment when dropped, but the number of pennies laying around on someone's lawn is so insignificant that this portion of the argument does not help prove anything. I, as well, agree that zinc mines harm the environment, but don't take the penny out of service to fix this. They're still going to make zinc for other purposes, it is not the penny that is causing the harm, it is the zinc mines. Pennies are innocent. Weighing: Economical Harm vs. Waste of Time (Con 1 vs. Pro 1): In this situation, my argument is clearly stronger do to the fallacious logic and overarching bold statements presented by Pro. The impact of losing ~$600 million/year and the other chaos that will potentially break loose is more significant than a few cents being wasted here and there. To put this in simpler terms, $600,000,000 > $3.65. Charities vs. Environment (Con 2 vs. Pro 3): With Pro's argument focusing on such an insignificant scope/area and my argument logically demonstrating harm to charities, it's no wonder my point is stronger in this instance as well. The Burden: Pro had three prongs to prove, yet he/she said that it does not have to be proved as I am the instigator. I strongly disagree as Pro is the side trying to change the status quo, and with that, you need to prove how your plan is going to be effective, which has not been done. These are the three unproved prongs: 1) I have clearly refuted this, disproving what my opponent attempted to say, therefore leaving this prong unproved. 2) Somewhat proved, but not all the way. 3) Once again, there has been no clear explanation as to how Pro's plan will "transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit." As the burden is left unproved, Pro does not have a case sufficient to win this debate, therefore resulting in a clear reason to vote for me, Con. The decision is up to the voters now. Conclusion: I'd like to thank my opponent for this great debate from which I have learned a lot and all future voters for exercising judgment as to who won. As a 13 year-old, it is hard to debate an economic topic against someone with a business diploma. I wish luck to my opponent as the debate comes to a close. As I like to say, e verbis victoria. |
41 | bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00002-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has "skyrocketed" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that "federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition." PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because "more Americans have sought education" tuition prices are "higher." So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that "colleges and universities" set tuition "high enough to capture... funds" wherever they "can be extracted from parents." So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that "federal student loans" have harmed students." PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round. |
10 | 1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00003-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...) |
45 | 652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00007-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The Penny This debate is about wether or not the penny should countinue being made in the United States of America. As con I will argue that penny production should be ceased, as pro you will argue that penny production should countinue. |
24 | 5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Your main argument encompasses the negatives of a lower Corporate Tax paired with the ability to create loopholes in taxation and end up paying very little either way. In this debate, I never stated that we should keep these loopholes. This is strictly based upon the assertion that corporate tax is entirely too high, and that we should lower it. Evidently, lowering corporate tax, making a much simpler tax code, and then creating a conjunction in which no company under any circumstances can skip taxation, would create a much better system. In the end, a nation that focuses on free trade would slash the corporate tax rate completely, and keep it at a stable 0. If government also cuts their own spending, this would be easily affordable for the United States. On a competitive level, however, we do have the highest corporate tax rate among other industrialized nations. Whether many of our own companies pay this amount is up for another debate, but the stable fact is that we have the highest corporate tax. We definitely should focus on closing up loopholes, but paired with a lower tax rate, as these loopholes are the only reasons why the remaining corporations have stayed in our nation. There are many benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate: 1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth. 2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness. 3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards. 4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity. 5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors. 6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital. 7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI). 8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting. 9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs. 10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.[1] You have also stated that corporations benefit from publicly funded organizations, such as roads, education systems, police officers, etc. Evidently, this is true. The argument here is that corporations could do the same in other nations, but people could not. In order to have safety, the government must devote funds to public organizations, which pairs with corporate likeability. Making an argument centered around the complete obliteration of the corporate tax without the complete deletion of tax loopholes will ultimately fail. For one to make an argument such as this, that person will ultimately need to understand the reason as to why there are lobbyists and tax loopholes. Our high tax rates ultimately effect corporations, and cause them to ship both jobs and capital overseas, into nations such as China or India that have much lower tax rates and much easier loopholes. Instead of basing our ideas on the general morality of corporations, which does not exist, we would create a comprehensive tax system that eliminates deception and incentivizes corporate investment. Being a Libertarian, I oppose all taxation plans, but I see most as realistically needed for the government to properly function. In the case of business, there should be little to no taxes, including both income and corporate tax. Business is based upon profit, and the desire for more profit, which people associate with the term greed. A government created legislation that undermines this desire for profit will be met by a dissociation of that profit base and relocation to a less restrictive nation, such as China and India. The three largest expenses of a corporation are wages, taxes, and supplies. As supplies and wages are necessary for the continuation of the company as well as employees desire to work in said company, removing those would be unrealistic. On the other hand, a relocation of taxes, whether based upon net revenue or net profit, would drastically impact interest of corporations as well as ability to function on a larger scale. You have previously stated that many corporations do not require a higher level education, which is wrong. According to the following source [2] (Link will be stated below), our job sector's need for education has increased dramatically throughout the next 40 years. In accordance with this information, your argument creates the illogical fallacies that state funded education is required for these corporations to function. This may be true if you take in account the entire world, as there will be nowhere else for the corporations to go, but in the matters of the United States, which is our debate's primary focus, state funded education will benefit the people more than the corporation. While you may believe that tax cuts will benefit the corporation more than the people, it is still clearly evident that lower taxes always equates to more incentive. We would effectively eliminate all need for tax lobbyists and special interest if we created a comprehensive tax system, or got rid of corporate tax all together. A small fraction of our government spending is created by corporate tax, which only alienates corporations and creates a disparity between economic centers in their need for unlegislated competition. In accordance with your previous statement, most of these retail jobs are held by the least educated in our society, and whether they are uneducated due to the governments failures or due to their own laziness and lack of willpower is up for discussion. Sources: [1] http://taxfoundation.org... [2]https://cew.georgetown.edu... |
5 | 2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00009-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments.[1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55's would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government's record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice.[2] As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."[3 Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don't money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree's contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account.[4] Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.[5] Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream.[6] Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual's heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them.[7] This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on.[8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html |
2 | 70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. "In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [8]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. Humans' Emission of CO2It would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[12][13][14]Another piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
45 | 3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | We should get rid of the penny If you check the link you literally just copy and pasted it...and also first round is acceptance. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but in all honesty I doubt you know much about this topic as you just copy and pasted it. Thanks for accepting my debate though! Also welcome to debate.org (oh and just to clarify by we I mean the US)I will state my arguments for keeping the penny.Argument 1- It costs more to make a penny then it is worth [1]It costs 2.41 cents to make one penny, and approx. 7.4 billion pennies are made each year [2], so do the math and we are wasting over 10360000000 pennies a year, or 103600000 (over 100 million), dollars a year on pennies alone. This is money that could be spent much more effectively, like on public schools! (Another source I found said pennies cost 1.7 cents to produce, which would still equal to over 50 million dollars lost)Argument 2- We already went along fine without something worth one cent [3] According to popular youtuber Hank Green "..in 1972 a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, and yet in 1972 the economy managed to function just fine without a coin that was worth 1/5th of a penny." It has worked before, it will work again.Argument 3- They are uselessMoney could easily be rounded to the nearest fifth, and are simply not worth the time and effort to take out and fiddle with exact change[1]http://www.usmint.gov... (at the bottom of the page)[2]http://coins.about.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com... |
29 | 72f9ab01-2019-04-18T19:07:31Z-00002-000 | Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens? | NCFL/CatNats LD 2010 topic Thanks, Pro, for beginning this debate. Re: Contention 1 "[Illegal immigrants] live here, they pay higher taxes than most Americans, they fill up the jobs most Americans are too lazy to take. But yet we denie them citizenship. We denie them healthcare, insurance, voting rights, etc. Thats a violation of the foundations our country is founded on." -- Pro First, I would like for Pro to prove that illegal immigrants pay higher taxes than most Americans. Until this affirmation is cited and sourced, we have no reason to accept this statement. Further, the idea that immigrants take jobs that Americans are too "lazy" to do is based on Pro's opinion and again cannot be cited with factual evidence. Finally, the idea that illegal immigrants are denied health care is blatantly not true; illegal immigrants are indeed admitted and cared for in the hospital under a 1986 statute that cannot turn people away from the ER for treatment even if they cannot afford to pay, or are not citizens [1]. Re: Contention 2 Pro's second contention is acknowledging the U.S.'s involvement in the UN, and then noting some of the rules UN members must follow such as allowing one to leave their country and return, etc. However you'll notice that absolutely nowhere in those guidelines does it say that illegal immigrants from one country should be granted the same rights and privileges as citizens in another. Acknowledging that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" does not translate to being considered equal in terms of legal rights and privileges in every single country. For instance, should I as an American citizen be able to vote for the British Prime Minister? Should German citizens overseas receive money sent to Americans in the form of a United States stimulus packages? The answer to all of these questions is obviously "no." ---- Con's Case ---- The resolution reads, "That the United States government has a moral obligation to afford the same constitutional rights to all people on American soil." First and foremost, this resolution is not specific toward illegal immigrants but rather pertains to EVERYONE on American soil. However, we already know that people are not all treated the same even if they are legal U.S. citizens. For instance, those under 18 cannot sign a legal contract; those under 21 are prohibited from purchasing alcohol; felons in many states cannot vote; gay couples do not receive marriage benefits; former criminals cannot legally purchase firearms; convicted criminals are restricted to jail premises; etc. Thus in order for the resolution to be affirmed, Pro has the burden of proving that ALL citizens should be treated the EXACT SAME under the eyes of the law regardless of their age, criminal record, etc. So far none of Pro's contentions have taken on this burden. Next I will address Pro's presented value of morality. He notes, "Most American documents have deep roots in Morality, and if not that, Justice, which is a branch of morality." On the contrary, many historical documents drafted by the U.S. government were NOT the pillars of morality Pro presents them as. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise in which every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives (found in the U.S. Constitution). Further, the Constitution also used to say that if slaves of one state escaped, they must not be freed by the laws of another state [2]. As you can see, the U.S. cannot rely on a "history of morality" but rather a history of greed, or as some put it, the virtue of selfishness. But let's move on. Pro continues, "The best standard to [achieve] this value will be non-discrimination. in other words, it doesn't matter what race, nationality, sex, or sexual tendency your are. Our government has a moral obligation to provide your constitutional rights." First, you'll notice that this description is not all-inclusive. While Pro notes you should not discriminate based on race or sex, he mentions nothing about age or criminal records - again, both of which restrict rights and privileges in this country. Further, you'll notice that Pro actually says that rights and privileges granted to citizens should be extended to everyone regardless of their nationality (country of origin). I negate this premise. In this country, citizens are forced to pay into social programs such as welfare, medicaid, social security, etc. via taxes. Non-citizens are NOT required to pay into these social programs. However, if non-citizens were allowed to receive the benefits of these programs, then essentially they would be "getting something for free" in other words stealing from American citizens. Robert Rector explains, "The average illegal immigrant family receives an average of $30,000 in governmental benefits, yet they pay only about $9,000 in taxes per year. That creates a $21,000 shortfall that the American taxpayer has to make up. That's like buying each of the illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible -- each and every year!" [3]. Pro has the burden of explaining how this type of blatant theft is moral using his own presented value of morality. On the contrary, I argue that since non-citizens are not obligated to pay taxes, then the government is not obligated to include them in extending U.S. benefits. Furthermore, I also do not believe that illegal immigrants should be able to vote in American elections. Once again, should I be able to vote in English elections simply because the U.S. and England are both a part of the UN? Pro, please show me where in the UN bylaws members are required to allow non-citizens to participate in the elections of any government for which they do not 'belong.' Additionally, Pro should provide evidence that by not allowing illegal immigrants to vote, we are somehow fueling hate crimes. Indeed hate crimes unfortunately exist; however, exist independent of voting rights. A recent FBI report on hate crimes indicates that black citizens and gay citizens were attacked more via hate-crime than non-citizens [4]. Therefore, we have no reason to accept Pro's claim in SPB from C1. In conclusion, I negate the idea that every person on American soil should be afforded the same Constitutional rights as the resolution implies. I am opposed to the idea of a 5 year old being able to sign a legally binding contract, for instance. I am also opposed to the idea of a non-citizen being able to take part in U.S. elections, or U.S. citizens being able to take part in the elections of any other country. Similarly, I do not believe that illegal immigrants who are not forced to pay American taxes should be able to receive benefits from American tax payers who ARE forced to pay taxes. I feel that this is stealing - in other words, non-moral. I also feel that using the standard of non-discrimination Pro mentioned is also faulty. Clearly we discriminate in this country; those convicted of a crime are restricted from buying guns, are forced to stay in jail, etc. Therefore we discriminate based on factors like conviction all the time. Operating under the basis that only citizens are subject to American rights, privileges and responsibilities is responsible discrimination that does not hinder morality; it enforces it. That's all for now, Pro. Back to ye :) [1] http://online.wsj.com... [2] http://americanhistory.about.com... [3] http://redblueamerica.com... [4] http://infidelsarecool.com... |
2 | e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00003-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated So you're ok with kids getting addicted to nicotine just because they think it makes them look cool. Companies advertise that it is safer than regular smoking but it really isn't. The chance for second-hand smoke is almost the same. There is no research at all backing that they help people get off smoking. In some cases, It actually makes your addiction worse. One student was carrying a Juul in his pocket when it just exploded. Kids are going behind their parents' backs and using them. Research shows now that e-cigs and Juul's are more popular than cigarettes now. |
34 | 19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00003-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States" I reserve the right top clarify 1st Round (Evidence and the case) 2nd Round Rebuttal 1. Social Networking web sites Definition www. techlearning. com/story/showArticle. php this is where people develop networks of friends and associates. It forges and creates links between different people. 2. impact- strong effect: the powerful or dramatic effect that something or somebody has . http://encarta.msn.com... An impact could be direct or indirect List of Positive impacts 1. Economy . http://www.usatoday.com... Social Networks are boosting economy through helping businesses advertise. Social networks account for billions of dollars 2. Democracy Social networking web sites help people exchange ideas and ultimately spread their beliefs and in result the democratic beliefs are the ones being spread to places like China. Therefore social networking websites are key to increasing number of democracies Social networking websites also help people organize and politically participate this leads to increased participation in US democracy, past 2-3 election prove 3. Terrorism and wars 1. A better economy is key to battle terrorism . http://www.linktv.org... "(U. S. ) Amin remembers that eight years ago we had a budget surplus-- and now our deficit is huge. If we can solve the economic problem, other problems will diminish. " 2. A strong democracy is key to solve war and terrorism . http://www.foxnews.com... Democracy is the answer (to terrorism). We will solve all the problems. We have a situation. We have issues. We've got problems. But we will solve them and we will rise to the occasion. And, democracies don't go to war with other democracies, so if the number of democracies increases the number of likely incidents around the world decreases. |
18 | 5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00005-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. In this debate, both individuals will argue that churches should or should not be taxed like other organizations. The debate is to be determined by whichever person has outlined better points for their case. Round 1: Acceptance (Only type that you accept the challenge) Round 2: Argument (State your point / No referencing or rebutting Pro's Argument) Round 3: Rebuttal (Rebut each others Round 2: Arguments) Round 4: Conclusion (Conclude your argument) I wish my opponent the best of luck. |
46 | e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00003-000 | Should net neutrality be restored? | allow internet service providers to block access to extremist websites ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality |
45 | 87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00004-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Should the U.S. keep the penny I think we should keep the penny, because if not then yo momma will have to raise her price to a nickel. And what yo momma gives me is only worth 3 cents. So yo momma would be getting a free 2 cents every time she services me. |
28 | 52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00001-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be illegal. First, I'll discuss Con's misrepresentations. Then I'll rebut his arguments.1. Con misrepresented the studies I cited.Con claimed: "Your stats are coming from illegal prostitution." This is incorrect. The studies I cited discuss prostitution in countries where it is legal. [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Many of these studies compared countries before and after legalization. By evaluating conditions under both legal and illegal prostitution, the stats I cited were fair and accurate.2. Con misrepresented my "human trafficking" argument.Con claimed: "Human trafficking is the distribution of sexual acts by humans." This definition is wrong. The studies I cited earlier defined human trafficking as illegal forced labor and commercial sex exploitation. These studies showed that such forced labor and commercial sex exploitation has increased in countries where prostitution was legalized. [8] These studies also showed that human trafficking increased as a result of legalizing prostitution. [9] Con dropped these points and completely ignored the studies I cited.Human trafficking -- illegal forced labor and commercial sex exploitation -- is bad. It poses serious health issues for women and girls worldwide, weakens the rule of law, and may even compromise international security. I explained this last round. Con dropped these points too.To reiterate: human trafficking has increased in countries where prostitution was legalized. Because legalizing prostitution will likely increase human trafficking, prostitution should be illegal.REBUTTALS1. Consent is not a defense.Con claimed: "If a person chooses to act a certain way, knowing it can be harmful, that's their choice." Though factually correct, this claim has no persuasive value. The whole point of criminal laws is to determine which "choices" are acceptable to society. Murder and rape are a "choice." Victims can even consent. But that doesn't make these acts less criminal. Likewise, prostitution. Just because women "choose" to prostitute does not mean prostitution should be legal.There is no amount of "consent" that makes a crime acceptable. If someone consents to murder, that doesn't make the murder acceptable. The murder is still a crime. So too with prostitution. There are many "choices" that are illegal. Just because something is a "choice" does not mean it should be legal. Prostitution may be a "choice" sometimes but that doesn't make it acceptable. Nor should that make prostitution legal.There are other problems with Con's "choice" argument. For there to be a "choice," there must be "informed consent" and "alternative options." Neither of those exists for prostitutes. Nor would they exist if prostitution were legalized. Most prostitutes were sexually abused as children. [10] Homelessness is cited as a primary reason women become prostitutes. Additionally, immigrants -- especially Central American women -- are often forced into prostitution when smugglers steal their money and threaten deportation. Finally, many women are violently beaten until they "consent" to prostitution. [9] Legalizing prostitution won't change these conditions. So most of the time, prostitutes only have a "choice" between two evils: deportation or prostitution, violent beatings or prostitution, homelessness or prostitution. Prostitution under these circumstances isn't a "choice." Would we say that a concentration camp survivor who collaborated with the guards to get food and stay alive had consented to his abuse? Would we say an enslaved African in the Americas who became a house servant had done so voluntarily? Of course not. To say there was choice there is absurd. And prostitution is no different.There are two points here: (1) consent is not a defense to a crime, and (2) prostitutes don't have a "choice" because they don't have realistic alternatives.2. Legalizing prostitution doesn't decrease violence against women.Con claimed: "I can guarantee there are less women beaten in areas with legalized prostitution than illegal prostitution." How does Con guarantee that claim? With nothing. Con literally provided no evidence or source for this claim. In fact, I provided evidence showing the exact opposite. Take a look at references [1] [4] [6] [7].Con claimed: "Studies have shown that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes." To support this statement, Con cited a single study from 2004. But Con misrepresented its findings. The study didn't say that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes. The study made gave a potential result based on a regression analysis. The regression model analyzed the correlation between the availability of prostitution generally and rape rates. The model had a significant likelihood of error. First, it relied on the wrong definitions of homicide and rape for the countries analyzed (this fact was admitted in the study). Second, it did not consider unreported rapes, which tend to be more common among prostitutes (this fact completely skews the data). Finally, given all these factors, the error rate is probably around 50%. [11] That means the study's prediction is a potential result, not a guaranteed result. Thus, the prediction has little if any persuasive value.Ultimately, the study concluded: "[T]he analysis seems to support the hypothesis that the rape rate could be lowered if prostitution was more readily available." Under that analysis, the study noted "[i]t is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by 25%." The keywords in that conclusion are "seems," "hypothesis," "estimated," and "could." The study's conclusion rests on conditional language. This fact highlights the study's high error rate. Furthermore, the study did not consider the extensive catalog of violence that prostitutes face which I discussed earlier.Con's source was from 2004. We now have concrete evidence showing its prediction was wrong. Compare Con's single source with the multiple studies I cited. These studies showed that violence against women has not decreased in countries where prostitution has been legalized. [1] [4] [6] [7] In fact, in many brothels with so-called "safety policies," violence has actually increased. The studies I cite give hard facts. Instead of making sketchy predictions based on sketchy regression models, they provide empirical evidence of what has actually happened in countries where prostitution was legalized.Because Con's source is outdated and faulty, and multiple recent studies prove Con wrong, Con cannot win on this point. 3. Con's other arguments are sexist and unsupported by any evidence. Con said prostitution helps men find a sexual partner. This statement is profoundly sexist. It suggests "men are entitled to sex" and "women are just sexual objects." Both these premises justify violence against women and thus cannot be used to justify legalization.Con said legalization will decrease the spread of diseases. This argument was unsupported by any evidence or study. Thus, it should be dismissed outright.ConclusionCon has provided no evidence for the vast majority of his claims. Those claims should be dismissed outright. The single relevant source Con offered was outdated and faulty. Recent studies also proved this source wrong. An overwhelming amount of empircal evidence proves concrete harms result from legalizing prostitution. Legalization caused a dramatic increase in human trafficking, a point Con conceded. Evidence suggests legalization would not decrease violence against women. Studies have found that legalization can increase violence against prostitutes. And prostitution causes unavoidable psychological harms, another point Con dropped. On balance, all these harms far outweigh any speculative benfits from legalization. For these reasons, prostitution should be illegal.[10] Diane Post, "The Legalization of Prostitution: A Violation of International Law," 2010.[11] http://www.stat.uni-muenchen.de... |
1 | d2653965-2019-04-18T14:40:48Z-00002-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | should kids be paid to go to school PRO stated that they should have a student bank account, and that students can only take out $20 for his/her needs. $20/week? $20/day? $20 for his/her needs? As I stated at round 1 that the needs are the parents' responsibilities, and orphans or kids with less fortunate parents have a lot of organizations that would help them. There's a huge difference between "wants" and "needs". PRO stated about the loss of trees to make money. And this is against PRO's case. PRO stated that if kids get paid to go to school so that they buy school supplies for themselves would make them grow up to be more mature and responsible. I disagree with this one. They'd be spending money they didn't earn, might as well call it "easy money". This won't make them more mature and responsible, it's just spoiling them. If they're not paid to go to school, they'd work to buy what they "want" if they're parents doesn't want to spoil them much. And that would be making them more mature and responsible. If they worked to buy what they "want" instead of asking their parents for everything. PRO stated that if kids could provide for themselves, they would stop nagging at their parents for stuff(Candy, soda, clothes, books, treats). Again, this would be spoiling them. Kids should learn to be satisfied with what they have, and stop begging for their parents to buy them stuffs they "want". Parents should be able to provide their kids clothes. Candy, treats, and soda are basically something that the kid "wants", they're not a necessity. Books? As long as they're educational books, I don't see any reason for the parents to not buy them. And if the parents are not able to buy the certain book the kid wants, I say it again, kids should learn to appreciate what they have. There are a lot of public libraries everywhere where you can find good books, and read them for free. PRO hasn't refuted any of my arguments, and I've countered all of PRO's arguments. Your turn PRO. |
31 | eb28d053-2019-04-18T16:08:34Z-00005-000 | Is obesity a disease? | "Livestock" slaughter is acceptable Thanks for the invitation! I'm sure this will be a great debate.http://www.youtube.com...---RebuttalsPro makes two main contentions about livestock slaughter: That vegetarian diets are less healthy for humans than meat-inclusive diets (Points 2, 5, 6, and 7) and that livestock slaughter is better for the environment than no livestock slaughter (3 and 4). I will address each.DemocracyPro's Point 1, however, is somewhat different compared to the other arguments. Pro points out that most humans in the US eat meat. I concede this point, but fail to see its relevance in this debate. This debate is not concerned with a particular government policy, but only about whether or not livestock slaughtering ought to continue. Thus, the fact that slaughtering for meat is commonplace is irrelevant toward the question of whether or not slaughtering for meat ought to exist.Furthermore, Pro's suggested "democratic society" only extends towards humans. In 2013 there were 8.6 billion chickens, 239 million turkeys, 113 million pigs, and 33 million cows actively resisting their demise [1, 2]. A democracy is a "rule of the majority" [3]. If all relevant voices were heard (and believe me: they are loud and clear [4]), a consensus would clearly swing in the favor of resisting livestock slaughter. After all, more "livestock" are slaughtered in the US in one year than the number of humans in the world, plus several US human populations.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com... (audio/video)HealthPoint 2: EvolutionPro suggests that because evolution has given humans the tools to eat meat that that means they must or should eat meat. There are a few problems with this line of thinking. First of all, evolution is merely a description of what kinds of things continue to exist; it does not tell humans what or what not to do. Everything in the status quo is a result of evolution by definition--from murder to rape to computers to diabetes. The claim that something is "natural" due to evolution misses the dynamic nature of evolution; the world is constantly changing, and not slaughtering livestock will make it better. Thus, even if our teeth are able to eat meat, that doesn't mean that they should; just as the ability or desire to murder does not justify murder.In fact, humans' earlier ancestors were insectivores and vegetarians. In terms of evolution, meat-eating is a relatively new diet, developed as humans started building tools, which allowed them to compensate for their non-weaponized teeth. However, humans never lost their ability to have a vegetarian diet and need for non-animal foods [5]. Currently, however, humans' biological cravings work against humans. The sweet and fatty foods that were rare for their ancestors are common for most contemporary human societies due to the massive influx in technology in a short time--so common that humans' cravings are doing massive harm to themselves [6]. They crave ice cream and steak when these empty calories are harmful. Furthermore, early ancestors were constantly running or walking to find these high-energy foods--in a society that does other things besides scavenging and escaping predators, humans are have far too much surplus fat and sugar [6], which leads to obesity, lack of nutrients, diseases, heart failure, and diabetes. Thus, an evolutionary perspective reveals that humans' "natural" cravings are actually harmful, and that their diets are in need of change, such as by removing high-calorie high-fat foods like meat from their diet. Moreover, the actual ancestry Homo sapiens reveals that a meat-inclusive diet to be a relatively recent development, and that vegetarianism is also in our ancestry. Also, the teeth we have allow us to eat animals, but don't help kill them [5].[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...Point 5: Lack of nutrientsPro states that a vegetarian diet cannot allow appropriate nutrients without supplements. However, two of Pro's own sources (www.nhs..., www.eatlife... ) contradicts him: "With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy balanced vegetarian and vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs to be healthy without the need for supplements." (nhs)"Eating vegan or vegetarian is not a problem. Eating processed vegan or vegetarian is." (eatlife)Apparently vegetarian diets aren't a problem if done carefully, according to Pro's sources. According to the Nutrition Society in Oxford, vegetarian and vegan diets are not worse than non-vegetarian diets. Obviously, vegetarian diets ARE able to provide the correct nutrients.According to the American cancer society: "Vegetarian diets also provide more fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and other phytochemicals (plant chemicals) than diets that contain meat." [7]Furthermore, much of the US already has vitamin deficiencies [8].[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...Point 6: Alternatives Pro's own source admits that eating processed foods is not inherent to or necessary for vegetarian diets. Furthermore, even these alternatives are far less harmful than the actual products. Veggie burgers are much healthier than meat burgers.In contrast, livestock farms are the #1 source of food-related illnesses, and responsible for hundreds of human deaths and millions of sicknesses [9, 10]. Ending slaughtering practices will end these diseases.However, there is a more tragic disease that meat eating is responsible for, that can no longer be stopped so easily: HIV/AIDS [11].[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...Point 7: Fat is healthyNo, as it turns out saturated fats are very bad for you, contrary to the book's "riveting storytelling." They greatly increase the risk of heart disease, failure, and stroke [12]. The majority of these fats come from animal sources [12]. Starches are also good to avoid, but this is irrelevant to the debate.According to the American cancer society: "Some studies have linked vegetarian diets to lower risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and certain types of cancer, such as colon cancer" [7]. Thus, meat causes massive health problems--problems that vegetarian diets solve.[12] http://tinyurl.com...EnvironmentPoint 3: Farming could be sustainable (one day)Pro admits that livestock farms are currently unsustainable, and fails to show that they could be sustainable in the future. Improving doesn't mean fixing, and Pro doesn't even say how improvement will occur.Livestock farms have contributed to water and air pollution that killed hundreds of thousands of fish, miles of wildlife, and many humans, with hundreds of thousands sick [13]. Global Warming. The United Nations found that livestock farms contribute to 25% of ALL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS [14]. These emissions are more than all transportation combined [15]. Because of global warming, freshwater will become scarce, diseases will spread, and species will be wiped out [16]. Thus, maintaining these practices will aggravate global warming.Livestock biodiversity loss is a huge danger [17, 18].[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://preview.tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] tinyurl.com/kh393zsPoint 4: Need to feed carnivoresObscure real-world examples are excluded from the debate (R1). Feeding dying endangered animals is one such extreme; thus, this concern is beyond the scope of the debate.Even if it were part of the debate, slaughtering "livestock" wouldn't be necessary. Zoos find that allowing the carnivore to hunt is healthy, so the human needn't slaughter. Furthermore, the slaughtered animal needn't be "livestock."---I will further address the nonhuman animal next round. |
38 | 59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana should be legalized Thank you for your timely opening round. In this round, I will refute my opponents arguments. Legalization of a substance My opponent states that legalizing something will result in higher usage; we agree on this point. Society will deem it more appropriate to follow the law, as is apparent. However, when Con states that Great Britain had a 15% increase in deaths from all drug once marijuana penalties were downgraded, we must look at the facts. The numbers used in this source are miniscule, nothing that can actually be substantial enough to show a link between marijuana and harder drugs (gateway effect). Deaths from Ecstasy increased from 33 in 2003 and 48 in 2004; cocaine increased from 113 to 147 in this time span; heroin 591 to 744. There are a multitude of variables that most likely change the number of deaths per year from these drugs. Citing the fact that they lessened marijuana penalties as reason why more are dead isn't logical. On top of this, these numbers are far too small to look into. Medicine My opponent states that he can point to another drug that accomplishes the same effects as marijuana with less harm. If we take a look at the statistics, which I will greatly expand on later, marijuana has caused zero deaths [1]. Over-the-counter-medicines and prescription medicines have killed thousands [2]. "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, unintentional overdose deaths involving prescription opioids increased 114 percent from 2001 (3,994) to 2005 (8,541), the most recent nationwide data available..." [2] I would love for my opponent to point to something that can alleviate anxiety, anorexia, pain, vomiting, and many others, while having MINIMUM side effects. I will happily go find statistic on how many have overdosed on that drug, because they most definitely exist. In accordance to my opponent's statement's about carcinogens in marijuana being more abundant then in tobacco, I can agree. Marijuana does indeed contain a high amount of carcinogens. However, marijuana also contains THC, which actually helps deter cancer. "...marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which [Tashkin] said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous." [3] He states that marijuana contains 20 times the risk of lung cancer, but again, there is not a single case of lung cancer from marijuana alone [1]. On top of this, the study actually doesn't include hard evidence that links marijuana to lung cancer, but has "hypothetical" and "could" used in it, words that are not definite. The lowering of the immune system is not validly represented by my opponent. According to my opponent's source, marijuana weakens the immune system in those who already have immune system deficiencies, which is solely due to the smoke. "Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells." [4] Again, it states this in accordance to those with immune deficiencies. To administer this medicine to these patients with deficiencies in their immune systems, marijuana should be ingested. This eliminates the smoke factor and eliminates all chance of infection in these people, while leaving the medicinal calming effect. What my opponent advocates is more pills and more artificial drugs, which end up killing a fair amount of people yearly. For example, take Vioxx. It was created to alleviate pain for arthritis, yet also created more than double the chance of heart attacks and strokes in users [5]. Marijuana, however, would not increase either of these risks, yet will alleviate that pain. Individual harms It must be made clear that 30,000 people do not die every year in Britain smoking cannabis. This is a misrepresentation of evidence by my opponent. Every reader here can look over the source. It does not state that 30K a year die, but that 30K a year could die. Here is the exact quote: "Cannabis may be responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year if the ill-effects of smoking the drug are comparable to those of smoking tobacco, researchers say." This is not the same as my opponent's statement. The article goes on to make hypothetical comparisons, all of which are unsubstantiated. Con's 64,000 deaths stat was not found on the link he provided, nor could I find it on some other anti-cannabis sites. Con then states that you can become mentally retarded by smoking weed and says your lungs will be annihilated. While the latter of these two has already been refuted (no lung cancer, no deaths, and actual prevention of cancer in the lungs), the former has not. Again, however, the evidence was construed from the original source. The source actually targets those under the age of 15 who have smoke cannabis. 10% of them developed schizophrenia by age 26. Obviously, just as with tobacco and alcohol, there would be age limits along with legalization. Nowhere did I advocate for no age limits. 15 is a young age where the brain is still developing. Still, the number is again a very small one (1 out of 10). Addictive- My opponent's source for this dates back to 1984, something I would consider a little too old to be using in a debate on current data and trends. Also, my sources point to the other direction. A chart was put together, comprised of a variety of drugs, in an attempt to rate them addiction wise, 1-6, 6 being highest/ very dependent. Categories were established to evaluate all facets of the drug. In dependence, marijuana got a 1, lower than coffee. It also got a one in withdrawal and tolerance [6]. This shows marijuana not to be addictive. Even if marijuana was addictive, it's irrelevant, for a user has the right to get addicted if they so wish. Why is tobacco legal? Nicotine achieved a 6 on the chart, yet it's sold in every gas station in America. "Fail at education" Again, marijuana won't be administered to kids, though the source yet again is taken out of context. 15% of car accidents in teens involve marijuana- "...often in combination with alcohol or other drugs." [7] is the other part of that article. Even so, studies suggest that those who drive after smoking are capable [1]. Family Con states marijuana users are sick more often than not. His source doesn't state this. Marijuana users don't steal money. Property damage wasn't linked in the source, which was from 1999. For characters sake, I must not elaborate too much on the remainder of the points. I will state that if marijuana were to be legalized, legitimate traders would benefit more then illegitimate. Growing on your own would obviously be prohibited, and the quality of the marijuana shops would be supreme to the shady drug dealer who lives in the dark alley who has brick weed and coke he likes to mix in....Come on, which would you pick? Political lobbying and lawsuits comes with every company. That's not sufficient reason to not legalize something. |Conclusion| I've refuted Con's points. We can all see marijuana to be harmless, beneficial to the economy, and beneficial to the patient. Thank You. Sources 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 2. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... 5. Owen, David G., "Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate," Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 737 6. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 7. http://www.drugabuse.gov... |
30 | f89bdc44-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00085-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | A handgun is uniquely valuable in self defense in one's home U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, "Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms', by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms."[3] |
50 | 62216c92-2019-04-18T19:20:58Z-00002-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Health Care Before I begin, I would like to point out that I have only been allowed five minutes to post. Please take this into account when voting on conduct. ======== I do not think that any definitions are necessary. Contention 1: Countries with universal health care tend to have higher quality of life. A detailed study [1] took various factors into account, such as cost of living, freedom and safety. This study was used to determine which countries have the highest quality of life. Of the top ten highest-scoring countries, only one (the United States) does not have universal health care [2]. Contention 2: Universal health care benefits everyone. Sometimes, there are those who are unable to get adequate health care on their own. This is often fatal. Everyone has the right to life; and universal health care can help people claim their rights. It is borderline inhumane to disallow universal health care. Contention 3: Universal health care is cheap. The United States spends 40% more per capita on health care than any other major country, including those with universal health care. It is predicted that instating universal health care would lower annual expenditures by a hundred billion dollars or more. [3] ======== References [1] . http://www.il-ireland.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://cthealth.server101.com... |
44 | 2bcc87d8-2019-04-18T11:14:25Z-00004-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | should holiday decorations be allowed in public school as a student myself i do believe that holiday decorations should be allowed in schools it makes school more exciting and more purposeful |
38 | e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use (It is okay, you need to learn sometime. Welcome to the site by the way! You are sure to enjoy it).1. Logic: We already have far more dangerous drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol legalized. Did you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to consume a marijuana overdose? It, however, IS POSSIBLE to consume a dangerous alcohol or tobacco overdose. And if those two drugs are legalized and are more dangerous, and marijuana is banned, what kind of logic is that? If marijuana is not legal then neither should be many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana and are legal anyway. 2. Profit: When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone!3. Choice: We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?4. Prisons: Check out this data table: US Arrests As Reported By FBI UCR Program Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests Total Violent Crime Arrests Total Property Crime Arrests 2012 12,196,959 1,552,432 749,825 91,593 658,231 521,196 1,646,212 2011 12,408,899 1,531,251 757,969 94,937 663,032 534,704 1,639,883 2010 13,120,947 1,638,846 853,839 103,247 750,591 552,077 1,643,962 2009 13,687,241 1,663,582 858,408 99,815 758,593 581,765 1,728,285 2008 14,005,615 1,702,537 847,863 93,640 754,224 594,911 1,687,345 2007 14,209,365 1,841,182 872,720 97,583 775,137 597,447 1,610,088 2006 14,380,370 1,889,810 829,627 90,711 738,916 611,523 1,540,297 2005 14,094,186 1,846,351 786,545 90,471 696,074 603,503 1,609,327 2004 13,938,071 1,746,570 773,731 87,329 686,402 586,558 1,644,197 2003 13,639,479 1,678,192 755,186 92,300 662,886 597,026 1,605,127 2002 13,741,438 1,538,813 697,082 83,096 613,986 620,510 1,613,954 2001 13,699,254 1,586,902 723,628 82,519 641,109 627,132 1,618,465 2000 13,980,297 1,579,566 734,497 88,455 646,042 625,132 1,620,928 1999 14,355,600 1,557,100 716,266 85,641 630,626 644,770 1,676,100 1998 14,528,300 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694 675,900 1,805,600 1997 15,284,300 1,583,600 695,201 88,682 606,519 717,750 2,015,600 1996 15,168,100 1,506,200 641,642 94,891 546,751 729,900 2,045,600 1995 15,119,800 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350 796,250 2,128,600 1990 14,195,100 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390 705,500 2,217,800 1980 10,441,000 580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664 475,160 1,863,300 Total 1996-2012 236,438,421 28,002,034 12,318,682 1,549,101 11,427,813 10,421,804 28,750,970 - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org... As you can see, many people are being arrested for possesion of marijuana which is a NONVIOLENT crime. Isint prison a place for people who commited violent crimes? Why are we putting people in jail for doing something that is only going to be harmful for themselves in the long run - and not for innocent bystanders?I rest my case for now and I am looking forward to your follow-up arguments ~ Sara :) Evidence citations:http://www.drugwarfacts.org...http://www.antiwar.com...http://whylegalizemarijuana.com...http://theweek.com...https://www.change.org... |
30 | 45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00003-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. " By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated "with correct instruction", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. " Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. " University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) "As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. " Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate. |
31 | 74b51a96-2019-04-18T18:54:13Z-00001-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate. Pro, then con But first, I'd like to point out that he has not used a warrant either. So this debate is not one with warrants. Our warrants are our personal experiences Obs 1- How can you tell me what a k is, you have never run one. Look at . http://www.debatecoaches.org... The K's are attacks on the case. Obs 2- Why is arrogance bad, Plus, we can best evaluate a debate, by the debaters it produces. If they are better at other events, is that not proof for the superiority of the debate style? a. But you are an experienced PF debater debating a pf style debate. b. How is it off topic, Extend the top c. My experiences are more likely. The man who created policy is dead and ghosts don't exist. Obs 3- So those of you who have done PF honestly like the biased judges who only vote pro, don't flow, and basically jut sit there? Besides, you have a great inner and outer personality, and I love everything you make. Obs 4- Policy creates debate coaches, because extend how policy makes better debaters, politicians, because you learn how policy is enacted, and how does PF make you a better lawyer Obs 5- a. the A only said that we have more time, it wasn't really an argument b. Depth than breadth, We cover a topic so much, we learn a lot about it. but with pf, you only learn as much as you need to Obs 6- 3a, their names are Skylar smission and Micheal Ingram, they went to carrollton with me Obs 7- In policy, cx is a time to clarify and sometimes double-bind, Cf is only for extending your speech Oh and I can't access Cx from the school network. |
5 | 36edcc1c-2019-04-18T19:45:50Z-00000-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security I refuted your first argument. Fon't drop your contentions. I believe I have won, in light of my opponent's lack of defense. Vote Pro. Thanks, -EG |
17 | e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use 1st round of counterarguments:Rebuttal for productivity: (wikipedia is not a reliable source by the way) there are many health uses for marijuana - it is actually not a bad drug for you if you use it in moderation. Here are some health benefits of using marijuana: It can be used to treat Glaucoma, It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health, It can help control epileptic seizures, It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome, A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, It may decrease anxiety, THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease, The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too, It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases, It relieves arthritis discomfort, It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism, It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder, While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain, Marijuana might be able to help with Crohn's disease, Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease, Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD, Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke, It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma, It can help eliminate nightmares, Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite, Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. ~BuisnessInsider.Rebuttal for adictiveness: Your claim is simply not true - it is very unlikely to be addicted, "although marijuana may be addictive for some, 91 percent of those who try it do not get hooked. Further, marijuana is less addictive than many other legal and illegal drugs." ~scientificamericanRebuttal for short and long term effects: If it is so addictive, then how come only 9% of people who try it get addicted? You are rambling on assumptions that you made based souly on your OPINION. Next round, please use evidence to back up your claim - it will then be a more reliable argument.Rebuttal for Various Strains: It won't though - as I have stated before, there are so many health and long-term benefits of marijuana, they outweigh the risks. Anything can be harmful if used very often - even drugs that are suppost to HELP you; and thank you for further proving my point with productivity.Reuttal for smoking joints: Actually, marijuana INCREASED USERS IQ. Here is a study: "Here's how the study was done: A group of young, middle-class adults was assembled, consisting of non-tokers, light pot smokers, and heavy users. Light users were those who smoked less than five joints a week, heavy users toked an average of 33 joints each week. Researchers used urine samples to confirm marijuana use or abstinence. veryone in the study had been subjected to IQ tests between the ages of nine and twelve. They subjected this crew to follow-up IQ tests to see how their lifetime use of marijuana might have affected their IQ. They found that the non-smokers IQ's stayed the same or went up slightly. The light smokers had an average IQ increase of five points, more than the non-smokers. That's right. People who smoked weed moderately experience and increase in their IQ scores by 5 points compared to people who didn't smoke weed." ~spiritscienceandmetaphysicsSources:http://www.businessinsider.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com... |
17 | 82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Medical Marijuana should be a legal option I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f |
4 | 29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00004-000 | Should corporal punishment be used in schools? | All schools should bring back corporal punishment I stated it worked and stand by it. If it didn't work then why would it have continued? Why is it since the bans started children have become incorrigible and school shootings, gang rapes and other things have become more and more popular. Almost weakly we read about; rapes, gang rapes, assaults and even murder. Those things did not happen back in the 60's and 70's when I went to school and bullying was very, very rare. Although I am sure things did happen in some parts of the country it was virtually unheard of. History - I just snagged this real quick from wikipedia. Corporal punishment was recorded as early as c. 10th Century BC in Book of Proverbs attributed to Solomon: He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes. Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell. It was certainly present in classical civilisations, being used in Greece, Rome, and Egypt for both judicial and educational discipline. Some states gained a reputation for using such punishments cruelly; Sparta, in particular, used them as part of a disciplinary regime designed to build willpower and physical strength. Although the Spartan example was extreme, corporal punishment was possibly the most frequent type of punishment. In the Roman Empire, the maximum penalty that a Roman citizen could receive under the law was 40 "lashes" or "strokes" with a whip applied to the back and shoulders, or with the "fasces" (similar to a birch rod, but consisting of 8"10 lengths of willow rather than birch) applied to the buttocks. Such punishments could draw blood, and were frequently inflicted in public. I don't know why you would be amused with my using a debate. It brings into play other opinions. I have no problem sharing my sources and even encourage you to use them. This topic has been debated since the days of the first real republic Greece. Like all republics, the softer they got and they more entitlements the weaker the empire and eventual collapse. I happened in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, British and now the USA. When I mentioned the 6000 teachers I guess I was wrong in believing you would understand it. I thought it was obvious and easy to understand. England is a very liberal country. They have many entitlements and have been pushing for all types of entitlement reform since the 1750's. (Don't go getting political I am using the word entitlement because the English believe they are "entitled" certain things. Politics is another subject). For a union (liberal) organization such as teachers and living in a liberal society such as England it is AMAZING that 20% of the teachers would say they think it should be brought back. The article doesn't say how may had no opinion or had a different position. Skewing facts does not make a case. Being spanked has never been proven to cause violence when a person becomes an adult. There are a ton of psychology papers on the internet talking about this subject but they never went out, grabbed 100,000 people, sat them all down and ask who had been spanked, who has been violent and do they feel there is a connection. What they do is visit people in prison, who are always innocent and ask about their childhood and being spanked. Then they claim that spanking damaged them!!! Yelling at a child causes more mental damage than spanking. However, a parent who calmly spanks a child after explaining why the child is being spanked and does so only to create a foundation for other primary methods of discipline (such as Time Out) is never going to develop a pattern of violence in the child. Never. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that spanking can stop a child from misbehaving in the short-term. Exactly. During that initial short-term period, parents should transition to Time Out to train their child to obey and respect others. Many children respond to self-controlled, reasonable spanking with an adjustment in their attitude toward parents. http://drpaterno.blogspot.com... Here are the states with corporal punishment still allowed, then the rank in violent crime, then the major cities in those states, and then the percentage of whites in those cities. We know violent crimes are highest in major cities, especially the inner cities. We also know that violent crimes are committed disproportionately by minorities and people who come from broken homes. The violent crime has nothing to do with spanking. States with corporal punishment Rank Major cities % white population in city Alabama 23 Birmingham,Montgomery 35.0 47.6 Arizona 16 Phoenix, Tucson 46.5, 47.2 Arkansas 11 Little Rock, N. Little Rock 49.4, 61.55 Colorado 25 Denver, Aurora 52.2, 61.1 Florida 4 Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa 55.1, 11.9, 46.3 Georgia 19 Atlanta, Augusta 50.7, 39.1 Idaho 42 Boise, Nampa 91.5, 83.45 **** Indiana 29 Indianapolis 58.0 Kansas 24 Wichita, Kansas City 64.5, 40.2 Kentucky 40 Louisville, Lexington 71.7, 81.04 Louisiana 5 New Orleans, Baton Rouge 33.0, 37.8 Mississippi 31 Jackson, Gulfport 18.0, 56.86 Missouri 12 St. Louis, Kansas City 42.2, 54.9 New Mexico 9 Albuquerque, Las Cruces 42.1, 37.5 * North Carolina 18 Charlotte, Raleigh 45.1, 53.3 Ohio 27 Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati 59.3, 33.4, 48.1 Oklahoma 17 Tulsa, Oklahoma City 57.9, 68.7 South Carolina 1 Columbia, Charleston, N. Charleston 49.6, 52.2, 40.6 ** Tennessee 2 Memphis, Nashville 29.5, 56.3, Texas 15 Houston, San Antonio, Dallas 26.0, 26.6, 28.8 *** Wyoming 43 Cheyenne, Casper 87.4, 92.3 **** * http://www.newmexico-demographics.com... ** http://www.southcarolina-demographics.com... *** Houston, San Antonio and Dallas are around 50% until the white hispanics are removed from the non hispanic. **** These were not listed with white hispanics removed. I see 5 in the top 10 and 3 in the bottom 10. Maine #50 is 94.4% non hispanic white. New Hampshire #48 is 92.3% and Vermont #47 is 94.3. I realize that spanking is not allowed in schools in these states but home spanking is. A liberal made a motion to ban home spanking and it was heavily defeated!!! http://en.wikipedia.org... |
11 | 5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00001-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Drugs Should Stay Illegal You haven't reputed M'kay. Drugs are bad M'kay. Explain why they aren't M'kay. |
38 | 3975582b-2019-04-18T15:31:02Z-00001-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Should We Legalize Marijuana Section 1: I shall be going into the mind of a so called "stoner" in this section. So to start off I'll say that, pot isn't lethal. Marijuana is pot, and pot has never killed anyone. Plus marijuana makes all my problems go away, its fun. From here on out I shall be discussing the medical advantages of marijuana. Section 2, Article 1: The legalization can help researchers find medical uses for pot, which may be later used to cure a disease that may come up in the near future. For instance... Look at Ebola, its a disease that has killed many people. Now, think about whether or not another serious disease showed up and the only thing that could cure and/or subdue it for a time is marijuana, would you rather it be legal? Or would you rather have to break the law to stay alive and healthy. Article 2: There are two chemicals in marijuana that can be used for medicinal purposes. Those chemicals are cannabidiol (CBD), which seems to effect the brain without making the user high, and tetrahydrocannabidiol, which has pain relieving properties. I'm sure this sounds good and effective to anyone, especially if they have long term pain problems. Article 3: Marijuana can be used to prevent eye diseases, like glaucoma, which increases pressure in the eyeball, which damages the optic nerve and causes loss of vision. This drug can save people from going blind, and its probably cheaper than the surgeries they offer to fix they same problem. This is great for those people who can't afford the said surgeries. The drug itself, decreases the pressure inside the eye, while a surgery can cost you your vision entirely with the smallest mistake. Would this be a risk worth taking? Article 4: It has been proven that marijuana can't damage your lungs. It can, in fact, increase your lung capacity. Researchers compared tobacco users and pot users, and the pot users seemed to have more lung capacity than that of their counterparts. Though this may not be good for those who have asthma, but it can be good for those whose lungs are slowly decreasing in capacity. Which we all should know is bad. Article 5: It can help with epileptic seizures. This theory was tested on rats in 2003, and it proved effective. It took away the seizures for about 10 hours. CBD, and THC work together to bind the brain cells which are responsible for excitability and relaxation. So, marijuana is the ultimate 'chill pill' in this case. As my opponent can see, there are many medical uses for marijuana, and there are probably tons more. If the readers, or my opponent, would like to know more about how marijuana can help, I'd ask that they check out my source which is posted below. http://www.businessinsider.com... |
50 | b8496877-2019-04-18T17:21:16Z-00000-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | everyone should be christian bro shut the fck up ur retarded bc jesus is the moral fabrics of this socitey and u need to accept that u moron ur prolly a jew |
20 | f0e341f2-2019-04-18T12:13:47Z-00000-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than "that other milk" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of "that other milk". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or "that other milk" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both "that other milk" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body. |
12 | b1869884-2019-04-18T13:49:38Z-00001-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | 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... |
48 | c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on "my side of the fence", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. "The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14." 2. Compromise. "The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17." 3. Alternative solution. "Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis." You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate. |
50 | 4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00000-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Universal Basic Income My opponent has forfeited. |
22 | 2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00000-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | every problem does not have a solution there isnt a solution to every problem.. i dont know how this can be a hard question for anyone aging is a problem if youth is a problem, death is a problem if life is a problem, the existence of pain is a problem if joy is a problem |
3 | 41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00025-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Carbon emissions trading Carbon tax can be implemented much faster than cap-and-trade |
38 | d3a6203-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00000-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine My opponent believes that I am not addressing his argument that marijuana is an effective medicine. I believe marijuana is an addictive drug and the claims that sometimes it is effective in reducing pain, nausea and vomiting are overstated and outweighed by its negative side effects (e.g., addictive property, cannabis-associated respiratory diseases, reduced cognitive processes, synaptic plasticity that weakens neuronal connections, increased use by teens who will believe it is OK to use even if not sick, etc.); whereas other drugs approved by the DEA and the FDA are much more effective and non-addictive, which is why there are approved as an effective medicine and pot is not. I also believe that a majority of the people who claim they need pot for medical reasons just want to get stoned legally! "Crunching the numbers; why I say almost all medical marijuana patients are faking it."Posted on November 15, 2012 http://edgogek.com...http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.cracked.com...My opponent also believes that legislative results are not relevant, a Red Herring, an Argumentum ad populum. But, he is overlooking the fact that legislators make their decisions based on their review of all the available medical evidence supporting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. They decide whether that positive medical evidence is sufficient to outweigh all the negative aspects of marijuana, e.g., a six-fold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, leukemia in children born from marijuana smoking mothers and damage to the growing fetus; addictive property, cannabis-associated respiratory disease, reduced cognitive processes, etc.My opponent"s claim that drug legalization results are irrelevant is a deductive fallacy. The only way medical marijuana can be used in any state or country legally is when the legislators agree with the alleged medical curative powers of that drug. Since most states (59%) and countries (74%) do not agree that marijuana has sufficient medicinal positive effects that outweigh the negative effects, they make it illegal, a pure and simple fact. Therefore, to say legalization is irrelevant is Reductio ad absurdum.He calls my use of drug legalization a "Red Herring." He obviously has no clue as to how to use that term correctly. The expression is mainly used to assert that the argument provided by an individual is not relevant to the issue being discussed. Again, the legislators review all available evidence as to the curative powers of a drug and its side-effects and decide whether that drug should be made legal, if they do not agree that drug is made illegal or not approved. So, it is totally relevant and is not a red herring.My opponent then calls my proof an Argumentum ad populum, which it is not. Now, if I had said that pot is bad because my 10 doctor friends said so or "that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions do it, or that Angelina Jolie is the best-looking woman in the world because she is regularly voted as such", then I would be making an argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia.org...However, the popular vote in the polls he cites is definitely Argumentum ad populum. Depending on how the polling question is phrased and the segments (e.g. young, old, pot users versus non-pot users) of the population polled, the results can vary. For example, if you phrase the question "Medical marijuana is very affective at stopping people going through chemotherapy from feeling nauseous and vomiting; do you think doctors should be allowed to prescribe it to help these poor sick suffering folks?" Many will say yes. But if you phrase the question, "Marijuana is a very addictive drug that is mind altering and has negative side-effects, but, it does help some cancer victims, as do many other safer drugs with minimal negative side-effects, do you think marijuana should be prescribe or the safer non-addictive drugs?" You will get very different results. Then my opponent states that regardless of any bias, I deserve to lose this debate because I have not posted one relevant argument except "marijuana is bad." What! Is my opponent not reading the con medical marijuana studies done by doctors and scientists that I have presented? Or, does he just not fully understand all the authoritative medical support I have presented because he is a teenager - 16 years-old, or does he just reject those con studies because they do not agree with his preconceived biased notions? Or, is my opponent just one of many teenagers that are not mature enough to understand and is already convinced because of all the argumenta ad populum that are tossed out by pathetic groups like Norml. Then my opponent brings up Marinol and claims it is less effective. Really, there are hundreds of studies and comments on this by hundreds of doctors. As usually, some are pro and some are con; but, most are pro other drugs and con medical marijuana. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...But, the most conclusive proof and the only one that counts in America is the research done by the US DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration and the FDA - Food and Drug Administration."Unlike smoked marijuana -- which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke -- Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products." Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four-times the levels of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."Conclusion: I have presented a plethora of facts and references to studies done by doctors and scientists to nullify my opponent's weak argument that marijuana has a positive medical use. Marijuana is a very dangerous addictive drug that needs to be banned in America. There are no positive medical uses of marijuana that outweigh all its negative aspects, especially when there are much more effective and safer drugs that have been approved by the DEA and FDA, e.g., Marinol. And, the only red herrings and argumenta ad populum being thrown around are the unsupported statements and articles cited as proof by my pot smoking teenage opponent who hasn't attained the maturity necessary to even debate this subject. Stating that my opponent is too immature to debate this subject is not an ad holmium attack, just a fact; he is too young and immature being 16 years-of-age. The founding fathers of America were smart enough when drafting the US Constitution to include the minimum ages to hold offices in the House of Representatives (25), Senate (30) and President (35). They knew that only mature adults could be trusted to run the county, not teenagers or kids. They knew that important legislative decisions should not be left to teenagers. Because of our founding fathers' insightfulness, important decisions about our laws are made by mature adults, not teenagers. Maturity is critical to ensuring that correct decisions are made for America, especially when it concerns deciding if very addictive drugs with many adverse side-effects, like marijuana should be made legal for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, too many states are caving into the popular sentiments of mainly pot-heads and pot-head organizations that are spreading lies about marijuana being a safe drug, instead of listening |
10 | 6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Due to the character limit of 10,000 characters, simply refuting my opponent's case (as it is quite short) would take up very little space. As such, I will go ahead and defend my points. Please note that this doesn't give any advantage to me, but actually allows my opponent to refute my arguments in the next round. Thus, this allows more debate without imposing any unfair advantage to either opponent. -- I will begin with my opponent's case, and then move on to my own.Observations:1. "Required by public schools" will remain.2. I also agree you don't have full BoP. I explained this. 60-40 sounds fair, if that's how my opponent wishes to distribute it.However, it would be typical for the full weight to rest on my opponent, as he is promoting a shift from the status quo. Argument I: "I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions."1. My gives not logical reasoning behind his argument for this point.2. Religious exemptions should be permitted, as I have and will demonstrate.Argument II: "The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs."1. It is a parent's job to do what they see best for their children.2. Their job description is as follows: "Fill bellies, maintain home, cradle, protect, teach, guide, listen, empathize, communicate, accept, trust, check up on, love, discipline, role model, doctor, clean and wash, (and then clean and wash some more) tolerate . . . and enjoy." [1]3. They are the parent and subsequently have the authority to do what they feel is best for their children. If they feel that vaccinations are uneccesary for religious reasons, it is their choice.4. The correct use of "there" would be "their" in the context of the sentence my opponent used. [2]With my opponent's case refuted, I will move to my own, and his arguments against it.Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted."There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct."1. Given that it is of a majority accepted lends evidence towards the idea that it *should* be accepted.2. My opponent proves nothing with his argument and uses no evidence. Thus, we remain with the only side that provided an argument. (Pro)3. I have and will demonstrate in other contentions as to how exemption should be permitted, and there should not be a change to the status quo.Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs."Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be."1. My opponent concedes that these vaccinations violate religious freedom, whether of the parent or the child.2. My opponent earlier agreed that the resolution should refer to what is "required by public school." By default, this would include every grades from kindergarten to senior year.3. Individuals are capable of choosing their religion in a majority of those grades.4. Moreover, children are often products of their environment. Logic demonstrates that, on general, if the parent is religious, the child will be religious as well.5. Parental guidance is necessary to help children grow and mature. Teens, and even children aren't fully matured until they are older. [3][4] Thus, parents can and should guide their children based on their beliefs (including religion)."However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination."1. My oppnent has yet to mention a single instance in which religious exemption has resulted in getting other children fatally sick.2. My opponent also concedes that vaccines are not 100% effective, and that they sometimes fail.3. My opponent has only established a correlation between sickenss and non-vaccination, but has not linked the cause to religious exemption.4. Because of the lack of examples supporting his/her reasoning, you would vote for the status quo (including religious exemption)."However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger."1. My opponent has not established the link between correlation and causation.2. Correlation =/= Causation3. Thus, my opponent cannot continue to say that religious exemption has *any* effect on others getting sick.4. Most religious individuals who decline vaccinations either believe in divine healing or still go to the doctor to treat diseases.5. Putting children at risk does not fit into this model if the children are actually still treated at the doctor or believe in divine healing already.6. His claim that I support putting 5-6 year olds in danger is totally bogus. I support divine healing, but these people also sometimes go to doctors. Moreover, it is not only 5-6 year olds that are affected. Net benefit is utilitarian, and thus, so is my position.Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution."You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment."1. My opponent cites no interpretation except his own.2. I provided my interpretation, backed by Cornell University.3. The first amendment protects the free exercise or religion. Prohibiting that in any manner is an infringement on individual rights.Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe."Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid."1. My opponent concedes; vaccinations do cause side effects and aren't totally safe.2. Medical exemption is irrelevant. This debate is about religious exemption. Presenting a counterplan in the Pro position, in the 2nd round, is not allowed.3. I was only referencing the RETRACTED study to show that there have been studies conducted about the topic.Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption."I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed."1. As I've said before, it is the parents moral and social responsibility to care for and guide their children as they see fit.2. If religious exemption is what the parents see best fit for their child, then that is what should happen.3. As I have demonstrated multiple times, in multiple ways, religious exemption should be permitted.Conclusion:I have explicitly demonstrated both moral and pragmatic grounds to preserve religous exemption in regards to vaccinations for students attending public schools. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof and upheld my side of the resolution.Sources:[1] http://www.easternflorida.edu...[2] http://wsuonline.weber.edu...[3] http://hrweb.mit.edu...[4] http://www.livescience.com... |
14 | d8741005-2019-04-18T13:07:16Z-00005-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | LGBT People Should Have Equal Rights CON: "There is no way to give a "born male" LGBT the right to give vaginal birth to a baby because there is no such available process". REBUTTAL: While it is true a born male cannot give vaginal birth that in no way implies that if they could they wouldn"t have the right to. We as humans are forced to live in the physical world we inhabit, and with it comes certain impossibilities. I only argue that LGBT people should have the right to, not that all would be able to. Freedom of speech is a "right" of the people of America as written in the Constitution, however if a person is unable to speak, write, or "voice" their opinion in any way it does not mean that the right does not apply to them, it only means they are unable to accomplish it. CON: "Do they have the right to break women's world records at the Olympics? If they do, why can I not participate?" REBUTTAL: Equal rights does not imply equal acceptance into independent organization. A male who has an operation to become female, has every right to attempt to enter the Olympics to compete in a female sport. Just as every male who doesn"t have an operation does. An organization is its own social establishment and such it operates based on the rights of the people within the group, as long as it follow the rules it originally described. If a male wants to join the female sport and the group doesn"t want to accept them that is their own right to do so. The male can still run, or high jump, or do any other sport they wish to do, but the organization doesn"t have to consider it as a part of their organization. If however the rules simply state gender by affiliation instead of by birth then anyone who affiliates themselves as female should be allowed to join. Note my argument is for SEXUAL orientation and not gender. CON: "If a "born male" who claims to be a female trapped in a male body can go in a female restroom, why can't a straight man?" REBUTTAL: I would like to note again the debate is about equal rights of people of differing SEXUAL orientation, not gender. If a right is given to a person to use a bathroom based on the rules of a facility then everyone has the right to use the bathroom as described by the facility. Whether or not a transgender person should be able to use a bathroom of their choosing depends on the rules of the facility. If the facility states the only requirement to use a bathroom is gender affiliation then they have the right to use the bathroom of whichever gender they affiliate with. It is up to the laws of a facility and organization to determine the rights of the people who use them. I do not believe however bathrooms should be restricted because a person is gay, or of a differing sexuality. MAIN REBUTTAL: It is true if you are not a police officer you can"t legally arrest anyone, it is true if you are not in the military you cannot legally enter facilities meant for military personnel only. These are rules set up by the government, I am not arguing against laws. My argument is if a right is given to men and women to join the police, or the military, or whatever organization, be it based on gender or not, the person's sexual orientation should have no bearing on whether or not they qualify. If a person is transgender they should be allowed to follow the laws as originally described. If the law says gender of time at birth is what matters then they should follow that rule, if it simply says affiliated gender then both transgender, and non-transgender should be able to follow the rules of whichever gender they affiliate with. If a law is made or changed to be against a person based on sexual orientation however, that is unjust. What difference is there between an LGBT person and a straight person that should cause them to be discriminated against. Sexual Orientation Discrimination is not currently illegal based on our current laws, but it should be. The Equal Rights Amendments (http://www.equalrightsamendment.org...) covers issues pertaining to gender, although lacking in information on transgender. There however, needs to be an Equal Right Amendment for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to have no fear of discrimination based on their sexual orientation. That is if a straight person of a specific gender has the right to do something a non-straight should have that same right. |
9 | 573179dd-2019-04-18T16:24:35Z-00000-000 | Should students have to wear school uniforms? | Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms no you choose to round house the topic. dodge questions and not really go into dept. next time stop spamming with heavy phrases. you not explaining your point good. |
20 | 7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00005-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Chocolate milk is bad for your health Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me. |
42 | 7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00005-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Fighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check. |
36 | 60e5fd41-2019-04-18T18:20:46Z-00003-000 | Is golf a sport? | Competitive Cheerleading is a sport Sport is defined as "jest" by:. http://dictionary.reference.com... And also by. .. .. .. .. .. my say. Neither a dictionary-definition nor a "contextually defined" statement was offered to this vital word of the resolution as such I decree this our definition of "sport. " :A jest. My opponent has stated that "Competitive cheerleading" is defined as "allstar cheerleading. " Now that we have meaning to every key term in the resolution we may proceed. Competitive cheerleading is a great physical activity as we see in the video, but my opponent cannot possibly prove today's resolution--that it is a jest. The two being one is absolutely impossible. One is a organized program. One is someone who makes you laugh. They are holistically exclusive of each other. |
8 | 59424b06-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?) I will argue why abortion is okay and why this justification should make it legal. Good luck. Meow. |
21 | 70f48902-2019-04-18T14:41:08Z-00005-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming PrefaceI am and have been a rather staunch supporter of the position that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. The question of the existence of man-made global warming is particularly serious in today's time, and is a highly controversial topic that I have, unfortunately, only debated once. Since I'm relatively free, with no debates going on, I think I shall go on with this debate. You must have completed 1 debate or more in order to accept. There is a minimum required Elo score of 1,500 to vote on this debate. Full TopicMankind is probably the main cause of global warming in current times.TermsThese are the resolutional definitions, all influenced from the Oxford Dictionary of English, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wikipedia. Mankind - the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.Probably - is likely to take place or be true.Main - chief in size, extent, or importance.Cause - the producer of an effect; a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result. Global Warming - the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.Below are the abbreviations that will likely be used in this debate, and are relevant to this discussion. AGW - anthropogenic global warmingCR - cosmic ray(s) TSI - total solar irradiationMWP - Medieval Warm PeriodRWP - Roman Warm PeriodSSN - sun-spot numberPDO - pacific decadal oscillationLIA - little ice ageRules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link. 3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before, and new defenses).4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.8. No deconstructional semantics (e.g. "cause" means origin, so the beginning of Earth's warming millions of years ago, etc.) 9. The BOP is shared. 10. The first round is for acceptance only. 11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals. 12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks......again to whomever accepts, and to voters and readers. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00019-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees. |
10 | 66bd9185-2019-04-18T15:07:17Z-00005-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Human-Emitted Greenhouse GasesIt is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [1]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [2][3]This excess CO2 traps heat. Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. [4]"If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[5][6]CO2 correlates with temperature. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[7]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[8]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Indeed, it would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[9][10]This graph shows this: [5]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[5][11]This can be shown in the below graph: [5]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[12]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [13]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [14]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [15]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments. |
10 | cef0f907-2019-04-18T16:54:31Z-00004-000 | Should any vaccines be required for children? | Vaccines are safe There seems to be a lot of myths going on about vaccines being dangerous. Con must try to prove that vaccines are dangerous. I will attempt to prove vaccines are safe and helpful. |
12 | c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00002-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Birth control According to the world health organization NFP is 99.6 percent effective. http://www2.richmonddiocese.org... That source of yours is biased. Condoms provide SOME protection against other STD's, but they have very high failure rate's at doing so. The risks might go back down, but that doesn't help women who get breast cancer while still on the pill. No condoms do not prevent abortion. That is only one reason why NFP couples have such low divorce rates. Read the rest of it. There are several other reasons as well. "Isn't using birth control better than having unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions? Look at both these issues and judge for yourself if contraception is part of the solution or part of the problem. Because of the widespread use of birth control, more people than ever have sex without intending to have children. Sex out of wedlock has become far more common, and more sex means more babies. Some argue that teaching people how to use contraceptives will alleviate the problem. But research shows that "programs in safer sex education and condom distribution have not reduced the out-of-wedlock birth rates among sexually experienced teens. . . . The fact is, increased condom use by teens is associated with increased out-of-wedlock birth rates."[1] A few years ago in Colorado, one school began passing out condoms to the students. Within three years the birth rate rose 31 percent above the national average, and in one school year one hundred births were expected among the twelve hundred students. The administrators were described as "searching for explanations."[2] When unwanted pregnancies occur, many turn to abortion as a solution. In fact, studies show that about half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion.[3] Some argue that increased use of contraception could have lowered these abortion rates. However, the research institute of the nation's largest abortion provider admits that most women who receive abortions had been using birth control during the month they became pregnant![4] Such couples feel that the "fault" of the pregnancy can be blamed on the failed contraception, but by contracepting they have already set their wills against new life. Since contraception treats pregnancy as if it were a disease, many people conclude that abortion must be the cure. I once saw a condom advertisement that called pregnancy "the mother of all nightmares." With this mentality it is no surprise that the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey said, "At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently used contraceptives."[5] Even a former medical director of Planned Parenthood admitted in 1973, "As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate."[6] Fifty million abortions later, no one can dispute his prediction. Lastly, it should be noted that anyone who believes that contraception decreases abortions ignores the fact that hormonal birth control can cause abortions.[7] Click here for details on that. Mother Teresa did not need to see the statistics. She was well aware of the connection between contraception and abortion when she said in a speech in the presence of Bill and Hillary Clinton: "The way to plan the family is Natural Family Planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily."[8] __________________ [1]. The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, "New Study Shows Higher Unwed Birthrates Among Sexually Experienced Teens Despite Increased Condom Use" (February 10, 1999). [2]. Jana Mazanee, "Birth Rate Soars at Colorado School," USA Today, May 19, 1992, 3A. [3]. Stanley Henshaw, "Unintended Pregnancy in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives 30:1 (1998), 24–29, 46. [4]. Rachel Jones, et al., "Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000–2001," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 34:6 (November/December 2002), 296. [5]. Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States: A Conference Sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the New York Academy of Medicine (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), 157. [6]. Malcolm Potts, Cambridge Evening News, February 7, 1973, as quoted in "The Connection: Abortion, Permissive Sex Instruction, and Family Planning," Life Research Institute (January 2000). [7]. Walter L. Larimore and Joseph B. Stanford, "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent," Archives of Family Medicine 9 (February 2000), 126–133. [8]. Mother Teresa, February 5, 1994, National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C. (Chastity.com) "Sometimes, all of the Pill's mechanisms fail to prevent pregnancy and successful implantation. It is often said that with optimum use of the Pill, it should have an effectiveness rate of 99 percent. Therefore, it is said to have a "method" failure rate of about 1 percent. However, in typical use the rates change significantly. This can be caused by many things, such as a woman's forgetting to take her pill or taking it at the wrong time of the day. Thus the actual rate, called the "typical" or "user" failure rate. For the first year of use for women under the age of twenty, the Pill has an annual failure rate of 8 to 13 percent.[21] One study that followed sexually active teenage girls on the Pill found that 20 percent of them became pregnant within six months![22] The typical failure rate of the Pill has been shown to vary according to such factors as a woman's age, race, marital status, education, and economic status. For example, one large study showed that poor teenage girls who lived with their boyfriends had a 48 percent chance of getting pregnant during their first year on the Pill, whereas a wealthy married woman over the age of thirty had a 3 percent chance of pregnancy.[23]" (Chastity.com) |
12 | 739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00004-000 | Should birth control pills be available over the counter? | Birth control given out in schools According to Plu,Edu.org giving out birth control in schools would increase the teen sex rate by 46% because they feel we are giving them the ok to have sex . . It is not the responsibility of the school to act as our parent. Plus there are side effects to birth control for example birth control pills prevent pregnancy 99.9% but they do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. According to Dr. Hutchinson from planned parent hood other side effects of taking birth control pills are depression, naseu, headaches and break through bleeding. Why are we teaching absitence in schools if there is another room in that school giving out birth control? We teach students to say to say no to drugs, we don't turn around and give the kids clean needles so they don't get diseases or infections. Let this be a family decision. |
35 | e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | violent video games some kids around my neighborhood one day i was out side and this kid and brother were talk about gta and they were going that they were going to beat up this with a pocket knife and and they jump the kid and i had to help the kid how was getting beat up i look at him and he had a stab wound |
6 | 138f16ec-2019-04-18T14:51:30Z-00007-000 | Is a college education worth it? | The teaching of "the Laws being done away with" by Catholics & Christians is FALSE *Just a note; I'm using the KJV 1611 with Apocrypha Bible. I'm going to open my case with Matthew 5:17-19 to see what Christ had to say about the Laws of The Most High. Then I will post a few verses that Christians or Catholics (same thing) like to use to say the Laws of God are done away with. Matthew 5:17 [17] Thinke not that I am come to destroy the lawe or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. So Christ tells us, out of His own mouth, that we shouldn't even think that He came to destroy the Law of Moses, or the Prophets teaching the Law. Christ said, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." So now let's see with a precept, what Christ came to fulfill. Luke 24:44 And hee said vnto them, These are the words which I spake vnto you, while I was yet with you, ty all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, & in the Prophets, and in the Psalmes concerning me. So Christ came to fulfill what was written in the Law of Moses. The only Law that Christ did away with was the Law of animal sacrifice because Christ was our sacrifice, He is the Lamb. Hebrews 10:4-5; 8-9 [4] For it is not possible that the blood of Bulles and of Goats, should take away sinnes. [5] Wherefore when hee commeth into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared mee: [8] Aboue when hee said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt offerings, and offering for sinne thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the Law: [9] Then said he, Loe, I come to doe thy will (O God:) He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. Matthew 5:18-19 [18] For verily I say vnto you, Till heauen and earth passe, one iote or one title, shall in no wise passe from the law, till all be fulfilled. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jote or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Has heaven and earth passed yet? No, we are still on this earth under heaven, this earth has not passed away yet. So why is it that Christians and Catholics teach that the Laws are done away with when Christ said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jote or one tittle, shall in NO wise pass from the law,"? "till all be fulfilled." What is to be fulfilled? Back to Luke 24:44. Luke 24:44 And hee said vnto them, These are the words which I spake vnto you, while I was yet with you, ty all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, & in the Prophets, and in the Psalmes concerning me. [19] Whosoeuer therfore shall breake one of these least commaundements, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen: but whosoeuer shall doe, and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdome of heauen. Christ said whoever breaks ONE of the least commandments and teaches men that it's okay to break the least commandments, he will not get to the Kingdom, but whoever keeps the commandments, the Laws of God, and teaches them to men, shall receive the Kingdom.*These are some of the main verse Christians/Catholics like to pull to say the Laws of God are destroyed. Romans 6:14 For sinne shall not haue dominion ouer you, for yee are not vnder the Law, but vnder Grace. What is Grace? Titus 2:11-12 [11] For the grace of God that bringeth saluati!3;, hath appeared to all men, [12] Teaching vs that denying vngodlinesse and worldly lusts we should liue soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, Grace is an extended period of time, a grace period. God gave us grace or an extended period of time to return to HIS Laws and become righteous because in the Old Covenant, there was no repentance. If you were in the midst of Idolatry, homosexuality, bestiality, etc… you would immediately be put to death. Righteous according to Deuteronomy 6:25, is observing to do all the commandments. So how do you live righteously, soberly and godly? By keeping the commandments of God; by doing exactly as God tells you to do. Now let's jump down a verse to see if because we are under grace we should no longer keep the commandments. Romans 6:15 - What then? shal we sinne, because wee are not vnder the Law, but vnder Grace? God forbid. "God forbid." – meaning NO! Now, what is sin? Christians/Catholics say that sin is doing anything that goes against God, which is true, but that could be interpreted many ways. So let's see how the Bible defines "sin". 1 John 3:4 - Whosoeuer committeth sinne, transgresseth also the lawe: for sinne is the transgression of the law. So "sin" is the transgression of the Law; sin is breaking the Laws of God. Romans 7:6 But now wee are deliuered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serue in newnesse of spirit, and not in the oldnesse of the letter. Christ delivered us from death because in the OT, there was no sacrifice for certain sins (homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, rape, murder, etc…), you would have to pay that sin with your life being put to death. Now through Christ, God has given us repentance. If we are in the midst of homosexuality, we can repent and return to the Laws of The Most High God. Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for vs: for it is written, Cursed is euery one that hangeth on tree: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, which is every one that hangeth on a tree or cross. The cross is referenced as a Tree, the precepts are: Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29; 1Peter 2:24. So Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law and He was "made a curse for us" – meaning He was hung on the cross for our sins. So because there was no sacrifice nor repentance for people in the OT, they were instantly put to death. Precept to Galatians 3:13: Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 [22] And if a man haue committed a sinne worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: [23] His body shall not remaine all night vpon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day: for he that is hanged, is accursed of God: that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giueth thee for an inheritance. So the curse of the law that Christ redeemed us from in Galatians 3:13, is the curse that would be upon us if we committed a sin that there was no sacrifice for in the Old Covenant, which was being hung on the cross. Galatians 3:24-25 [24] Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ, that we might be iustified by Faith. The "Schoolmaster" was the law of sacrifice to bring us to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ is the Lamb (1 Peter 1:19), He was our sacrifice for sins. "that we might be justified by faith." – so we need to believe or have faith that Christ died for our sins, now, does not mean that you just keep faith alone? No, faith without works is dead – James 2:17. The works are the commandments according to James 2:21-24. Whenever God tells us to do something, it is a commandment. [25] But after that Faith is come, we are no longer vnder a Schoolemaster. Now that we have faith, we believe that Jesus is the Lamb, the sacrifice of sins, we are no longer under the animal sacrifice – the schoolmaster. Now, here are some Scriptures that contradict what Christians/Catholics teach. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. So everything that Christ said and that the Prophets wrote in the Bible, are the Laws of God. 2 Kings 17:37 And the Statutes, and the Ordinances, and the Law, and the Commandement which he wrote for you, ye shall obserue to doe for euermore, and ye shall not feare other gods: So we are to do the commandments, keep the commandments FOREVER. John 14:15 If ye loue me, keepe my commandements. Christ said if you love Him, keep his commandments; the commandments of God 1 John 5:3 For this is the loue of God, that we keepe his commandements, and his commandements are not grieuous. So if you say you love God, you should be keeping HIS Laws, this includes unclean foods. Unclean foods is part of the Law of The Most High God. Luke 2:22 And when the dayes of her purification according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought him to Hierusalem, to present him to the Lord, So when Mary had Jesus, she was following and was under the Law of Moses. Mind you now, this is the New Testament. 2 John 6 And this is loue, that wee walke after his Commandements. This is the Commandement, that as yee haue heard from the beginning, yee should walke in it. John even says to walk after the commandments of Christ, which are the commandments of God. "This is the Commandement, that as yee haue heard from the beginning, yee should walke in it." – As we heard from the beginning or from the book of Genesis because Genesis means beginning. The Laws were established in the book of Genesis. The creation of the Sabbath day, the 7th day (Saturday) was the 1st commandment created by The Most High God. Sunday is the 1st day of the week, that is not the Sabbath. So the Laws stated from Genesis to Revelation, is what we should be walking in, excluding animal sacrifice of course. 1 John 2:6 He that sayeth he abideth in him, ought himselfe also so to walke, euen as he walked. If you say you are a follower of Christ, you should walk as He walked; Christ kept the commandments and if we follow Christ, we also should be keeping the commandments. Just to inform everyone, when Christ came on the scene, the Israelites were under the Old Covenant, the New Covenant was not written yet. So everything Jesus Christ and the other Prophets quoted, were from the Old Covenant, which means the Israelites were still under the OT when Christ came on the scene. |
22 | c63a5a63-2019-04-18T19:29:06Z-00005-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israel is justified in attacking gaza Under the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which est. the modern jewish state, it called for palestine and israel. Forget about Jordan and Egypt.The Jews were given all but gaza, the w. bank, and jerusalem. These pieces of territories were granted to the palestinians. In the war of 1967, israel illegally expropriated gaza, the w.bank, and jerusalem. We can argue all day about who started the war, but in reality, this is not necessary. Under the international rules of war, no state can aquire territory as a result by war. To quote Ehud Barak's former foreign minister, Abba Aben, and also author of the book, "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace," he says the following: "It is inadmissible to acquire territory as a result by war; Israel acquired Gaza, the W.Bank and J-lem as a result by war; therefore, it is inadmissible to keep them." That is the fundamental principle of int'l law. Israel occupies them today, therefore, this is an occupation which is illegal as a result. http://daccessdds.un.org... http://www.wrmea.com... http://www.geocities.com... http://www.washington-report.org... There is something clearly wrong w/ your case. The Palestinians, including under hamas, have always recognized and respected the two state solution, further allowing israel to remain a state of the jewish people. I will now list many times in which the Palestinians, regardless of what leadership they were under, recognized the two state solution and everytime israel rejected it. 1. Since the mid-1970s, there's been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.It's called a two-state settlement. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it's inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That's the international consensus. It was voted on every year in the UN. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. In 1981, as pressure builds on Israel to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. Avner Yaniv, in his book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, �€œThe main problem for Israel was "the P.L.O.'s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not.�€ï¿½ And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile. 2. Clinton parameters (2000)-both the Israelis and the Palestinians have accepted the Clinton parameters with some reservations. Both sides entered reservations on the Clinton parameters. In Clayton Swisher's book, "The Truth at Camp David," he says the following: "Barak sent a ten-page letter of reservations to the Clinton parameters." (pg. 402) 3. Taba talks, Egypt and Camp David (2000-2001)- there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. everyone, including you, talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% �€" 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law. Israel has not abided by any of these rulings. And then you ask yourself, "why are the pals. killing?" Why did Taba end? According to former professor at dePaul unversity Norman Finkelstein, it officially ended when Barak w/drew his negotiators from the table. Annapolis (2008)- The Pals, under pres. abbas, recognized the two state solution. During this time, Israel's illegal construction of settlements increased at a much rapid pace than ever before (40 times faster). This was a major impediment to the process, therefore, no solution was made. Israel was supposed to evict the settlements in gaza. Gaza, as i have already est. w/o dispute, is occupied pal. territory, and i have proven that already. you cant counter intl law. The reason why the pals keep launching the rockets is because they are under occupation. Once again, i have proven that not only is there an occupation, but that it's illegal. The palestinians have the right to defend itself. "Hamas in particular to "kill Jews" Vey foolish. If this were true, hamas would have been est. many decades ago. Hamas, including in the charter, recognizes and is willing to go back to the 1967 borders. This is what intl law ruled, and hamas abided by that. Hamas has also signed the document that has now been sitting in the arab league for 6 yrs, recognizing the 2 state solution. We can argue about the charter, and i must say, that your evidence regarding its charter is not valid because it comes from israeli sources. It is biased. Come up with something better than that. Hamas has offered long term truces, but israel has rejected them. In the last truce, hamas showed its willingness to maintain peace by not launching a single rocket into israel. israel breaks it on nov. 4 when it goes in and kills 6 militants. Since hamas was dem. elected, it did not send out a single suicide bomber into israel. what does this tell us? "And Qassam rockets have been falling since 2000... well before any "blockade." yes, and there has been an occupation ever since 1948. this is just a simple response. Hamas manufactures its own rockets, regardless of where it gets the material. They arent deadly either. As i have stated, only 21 israelis died from such rockets. over 6000 pals have died: http://www.btselem.org... Israel has given no proof, during or after the war, that hamas used human shields. How would u kno this when no reporters were allowed in? proof on idf bombing civil areas: http://www.time.com... http://www.juancole.com... http://imeu.net... http://www.guardian.co.uk... israel said from the beginning that it gave up ALL of gaza. It never mentioned stages. it said it completely w/drawed. This is a lie. |
35 | 5b6b2f9-2019-04-18T15:28:19Z-00001-000 | Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? | Violent Video Games Can Video Games Kill?The definition of violence is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. For example, in Grand Theft Auto V, the three main characters are all thieves, or something along the lines of that work. In the game, they go around robbing people of cars, money, and other possible objects. It does have a wide range of weapons to use in case they get into trouble. Do video games cause this violence? No, not always. Violent video games will not always make gamers aggressive or violent. People say that because they play something like GTAV, they will become human-murdering monsters, or a thief. Violent video games do not directly make people violent as the... "... arrest rate for juvenile murders had fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. In the same period video game sales have more than quadrupled" (Crime in the United States). The teenage arrest rate has significantly gone down while video game sales have risen. Therefore, the violence in video games has not affected the teenagers' feelings and/or violence. Though people have tested their theories and got results that would make it seem the opposite than the facts, "many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression" (Internet Fantasy Violence). Therefore, most of those studies are not reliable. Difficult levels and practice (or lack of) make players aggressive, like in this study, "Lack of practice, awkward controls and games that were unnecessarily difficult all caused frustration" (Violent Video Games…). So the violence does not cause the player to 'rage quit' or scream at the television, their experience and lack of skill, will. Games can make the player aggressive, just not in the way it seems. One study "enhanced" the game Tetris making it able to know what piece is needed, and not giving it 78% of the time. After playing the subjects had their anger tested. Those who used the super hard version had a lot more anger than those who played the regular version (Violent Video Games). So even Tetris can make the average player angry, probably one of the least violent games in video game history.Violent video games are also safe outlets for players to let out anger. Here it states"...that 45% of boys played video games because, 'it helps me get my anger out' and 62% played because it, 'helps me to relax'" (Journal of Adolescence Health). Here it states that many kids/teens use video games to rid them of stress, so they don't act out on others. "Video game players understand they are playing a game... [this] prevents them from emulating video game violence in real life" (An Exploration of Adolescents…) This tells that people and hard-core gamers know that it is just a game. They know not to terrorize people, or hurt others. They need video games to relieve themselves of stress. Now people might say, 'What if they do not know the difference?' People (mainly parents) need to trust others (or in some cases) their own children, because more likely than not. They understand it is just a game.Remember there is not a strong connection between aggression and violent video games. Also, violent video games do not directly make people violent, difficult levels and practice (or the lack of) make players aggressive. Violent video games are also safe outlets for kids to learn about world issues and a safe outlets for relieving stress. "...if we're worried about the effects on kids of video games... we should not be encouraging them to play less. We should be encouraging them to play more" (Violent Video Games…).Works Cited Bennett, Drake. "Violent Video Games Don't Make You Aggressive (but Tetris Might)." Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007"Crime in the United States, 2008," FBI website, Sep. 2009Dmitri Williams and Marko Skoric, "Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game," Communication Monographs, June 2005"Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry," Entertainment Software Association website, May 2009Fiona Macrae for the Daily Mail. "Violent Video Games DON'T Make Players Aggressive - Lack of Practice and Difficult Levels Do." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.Michael Reagan, "US Military Recruits Children: 'America's Army' Video Game Violates International Law," Truthout website, July 23, 2008Steven Malliet, "An Exploration of Adolescents' Perceptions of Videogame Realism," Learning Media and Technology, 2006 |
43 | 824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00001-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned I hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is "too much government. " By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying "I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a "punishment" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1. |
11 | 1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00005-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports. |
44 | 128e6089-2019-04-18T15:08:41Z-00003-000 | Should election day be a national holiday? | Potatoes should have basic human rights. Before extending on my argument, I would like to point out that by forfeiting the second round, my opponent has not fulfilled the Burden Of Proof. Now to begin with my argument. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines'potato' as the starchy edible tuber of the Solanum Tuberosum. This falls under the category Solanaceae. Now,the proposition has forgotten that this debate revolves around plant sentience, a paranormal theory that plants respond to human beings and that they experience pain and fear. The idea is not supported, as plants lack a nervous system. This idea is distinct from measured plant perception and chemical communication.Plants are living things with cellulose cell walls, lacking nervous or sensory organs. Animals do not have cellulose cell walls but do have nervous or sensory organs. Animals are sentient; plants are not. A brain and nervous system are necessary for sentience; plants don't have brains or nervous systems. Plants react to physical and chemical stimuli, but there is no justification for claiming that plants are aware of these reactions, that they are self-conscious or conscious beings. The Animal Liberation Front argues that there is no evidence that plants can experience pain. This just shows that the breach or upkeep of human rights would not matter to them. References: http://skepdic.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... |
34 | cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00004-000 | Are social networking sites good for our society? | Social networking sites are beneficial First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly. |
24 | d7aa69c4-2019-04-18T16:31:03Z-00003-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Taxes on the Rich should be Increased There is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs. There is an extensive academic literature on this subject, and it all lends itself to the same conclusion: tax cuts are not conducive to growth, but is to income inequality and middle class stagnation. First, let's discuss the reality of the current state of taxation in the United States. Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economy Policy Institute, in examining post WWII tax rates, noted this observation (1): Since the end of World War II, U.S. top individual income tax rates have declined markedly, as have effective tax rates on corporate income, capital income, and inheritances. Consequently, the federal tax code has become much less progressive (Piketty and Saez 2007). The top statutory marginal tax rate has fallen from just over 90 percent in the 1950s, to 70 percent in the 1970s, to 50 percent in the mid-1980s, to 35 percent for most of the past decade (TPC 2013a). The taxable income cutoff above which the top rate is applied for married joint filers has also fallen precipitously, from roughly $3 million in the early 1950s (adjusted to 2012 dollars), to roughly $1 million in the early 1970s, to just $388,350 for 2012 (TPC 2013b). The overall decline in progressivity is most striking within the top income percentile: The effective tax rate for the top hundredth of a percentile (i.e., 99.99–100 percent of filers by income) has fallen by more than half, from 71.4 percent in 1960 to 34.7 percent in 2004, versus a decline for the 99.5–99.9 percentiles from 41.4 percent in 1960 to 33.0 percent in 2004 (Piketty and Saez 2007). To elucidate this piece, here are his conclusions: 1. Tax rates, which ranged from 70 to 91% in the first three decades of the post-WWII era, have fallen substantially. 2. Effective rates on corporate income, capital gains, and estate taxes have fallen as well. 3. The tax code, with time, has become increasingly less progressive. We also have data telling us that the tax systems in most states are regressive – that is, a disproportionate portion of the burden is falling on lower-income people – as many states move away from progressive income taxes in favor of sales taxes (2). At the same time, corporations are getting giant breaks. Not only are they low by historic standards, as Thomas Hungerford points out (3); the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice conduced an extensive study (4) of 288 Fortune 500 companies over a 5 year period, and came to the following conclusions: 1. 111 companies, including GE, Exxon, and Boeing paid negative tax rates. 2. One third paid no federal income tax less than 10 percent over the period. 3. The average tax rate was only 19.4%. 4. 55 of the 288 companies enjoyed several years of new taxes, with a total of 203 years of no taxes. So, now we have examined the evidence as to the current state of taxation. Let's review: 1. Many states have regressive tax burdens. 2. The very affluent have seen their tax rates at near historic lows – in spite of significant growth in the post-WWII era with significantly higher tax rates – and are enjoying significant breaks on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer, who have been forced to shoulder the burden. 3. Corporations are receiving unheard of breaks. So, we know that the essence of trickle-down economics is already in play: taxes are already low. What are the results, however, of these breaks? Let's go back to Andrew Fieldhouse, whose study concluded this: Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth—private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity—nor on overall economic growth rates. Interesting. But what about the Laffer Curve, conservatives may ask? Is there not a point beyond which the government simply cannot raise taxes lest it loses revenue? Of course there is. But what is that rate, and are we anywhere near it? Fieldhouse addresses this, as well: Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate…. Historically, decreases in top marginal tax rates have widened inequality of both pre- and post-tax income. Emmanuel Saez and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond also weighed in as to what the effective tax rate ought to be, and concluded that the optimal tax rate on high-income Americans would be 70% (5). We also have data from a 65-year study from the Congressional Research Service (6). Here is their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. For more on income inequality, let's go to Robert Reich (6): During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It's no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners' share of the nation's total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns. And, for a bit more, let's go to Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, who cites World Bank economist Branko Milanovic (7): From 1988 to 2008, Mr. Milanovic found, people in the world's top 1 percent saw their incomes increase by 60 percent, while those in the bottom 5 percent had no change in their income. And while median incomes have greatly improved in recent decades, there are still enormous imbalances: 8 percent of humanity takes home 50 percent of global income; the top 1 percent alone takes home 15 percent. Income gains have been greatest among the global elite — financial and corporate executives in rich countries — and the great "emerging middle classes" of China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. But how bad is income inequality? Let's ask Stiglitz: Last year [2012] the top 1 percent of Americans took home 22 percent of the nation's income; the top 0.1 percent, 11 percent. Ninety-five percent of all income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. Recently released census figures show that median income in America hasn't budged in almost a quarter-century. The typical American man makes less than he did 45 years ago (after adjusting for inflation); men who graduated from high school but don't have four-year college degrees make almost 40 percent less than they did four decades ago. So, there is certainly a moral argument at play: the middle-class has stagnated since the 1980s – the rise of Ronald Reagan, and the inception of the supply-side economics experiment we've been experiencing for about 34 years now. But what are the economic effects of income inequality? Should we be worried that income inequality is constraining the economy? Yes, says Stiglitz again. He makes the following four arguments: 1. Income inequality will lead to underconsumption, as the rich spend relatively smaller portions of their income than poor people due to the diminishing marginal returns of income. 2. Income inequality leads to a waste of human talent, as the non-affluent cannot access high-quality education as readily as rich people. 3. Income inequality gives way to financial crises. 4. Income inequality lowers tax receipts. And we also know that income inequality in the United States, coupled with social mobility, is significantly lower than it is in Europe. We know that countries in Europe – Finland, Germany, Norway, et al. – and even the U.S. in the three decades post-WWII had higher tax rates, more government investment, less income inequality, and more growth as a result. European countries also beat the U.S. on health, life expectancy, happiness, economic mobility, etc. Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming, and there isn't much time to waste. Supply-side economics is a fantasy. Sources: 1. http://www.epi.org... 2. http://www.itep.org... 3. http://www.epi.org... 4. http://www.ctj.org... 5. http://pubs.aeaweb.org... 6. http://robertreich.org... 7. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... |
20 | 45462ad0-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00006-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Can video games be healthy studies of video games are being conducted across the world on whether or not video games are healthy or not. Several studies show a rise in gray matter in the right hippocampus, right prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum areas of the brain responsible for spatial navigation, memory formation, strategic planning and fine motor skills in the hands. |
1 | c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00003-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | There should not be a teacher tenure. Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. " A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) "An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. " Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, "56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. " (M. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: "In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. " (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: "Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. "("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: "To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around" for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. " (Marcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because "with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude. " (Rose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: "It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms") where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. " ("Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: "Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. " (Nanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: "For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. " (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, "Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure," www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, "Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform," www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, "Challenging Tenure in D. C. ," www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, "A Brief History of Tenure," www. time. comRose Garrett, "What Is Teacher Tenure? ," www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org... "Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools," www. wsj. comSteven Brill, "The Rubber Room," New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force," New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, "Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ," www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, "Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle," San Francisco Chronicle |
50 | 298a4e4e-2019-04-18T19:20:01Z-00003-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | There is no better alternative for society than debt free currency Cons substantive contention is that debt free currency leads to inflation. The over supply of printed currency, counterfeiting, currency speculation, and the private lender's mismanagement of the fractional reserve system also contribute to inflation. We have empirical data on all of these contributors. The primary culprits generating and exacerbating inflation are those who speculate in currency.1 When a nation's debt burden is so high it can no longer service the debt, speculators hasten to bring down currency values.2 In the U.S., the Legal Tender Law of 1862 ushered in Greenbacks. They were legal tender and interest free and did not add to the national debt. Congress authorized only $450 million, of which fifty million replaced Treasury notes outstanding. The limitation on issue was Congress's way to control inflation and devaluation. Bankers did not mobilize against the new law which suspended convertibility of paper money created by the private banks into species. They had to wait until the beneficial effects of the new currency rescued their own positions in gold and brought the nation through the war. The suspension and banker's non-reaction to it showed that metallic backing of bank notes was a fiction - a fraud. For every dollar of credit lent, the banks were holding less than ten cents in gold. In effect, system wide, the debtors had not been loaned metal, but paper. Those banks pressing legal claims to have their paper redeemed with gold were all denied by the Supreme Court. The Greenback lost substantial value during the Civil War, since bills of credit were still redeemable in gold and Greenbacks were new to lenders and borrowers alike. However, by the mid-1870's Greenbacks were redeemable one-to-one with gold.3 Comparing a wartime inflation under a government run money system (Civil War) to wartime inflation under a private banker run system (WW1), Civil War historian J. G. Randall wrote: " The threat of inflation was more effectively curbed during the Civil War than during the First World War. Indeed as John K. Galbraith has observed, 'it is remarkable that without rationing, price controls, or central banking, Chase (Treasury Secretary under Lincoln) could have managed the federal economy so well during the Civil War.'"4 The confederacy had no limitation on the issuance of its currency, they had no central bank, and the currency was not legal tender; it was only redeemable for species two years after issue. Inflation was rampant and by the end of the war..."...$1 in a confederate note had depreciated from $.90 in gold to $.017 in gold by 1865, and by 1866 Confederate notes were worthless.5 Lerner's estimates depreciation are now considered high. Since the South supported free market-mercantilism it eschewed regulation of and impediments to the operation thereof. There were 38 private banks in the south during the Civil war and each had it's own currency and interest rates and while they were competitive among banks they were in no way designed to stabilize the supply of Confederate currency or specialized notes. Added to this profligate dispensation of legal tender was the rampant counterfeiting of all Confederate paper currencies. hence rampant inflation. Greenbacks could not be counterfeited because of special ink, paper and design. Today we have a system of public sanctioning of private control of currency. In return for that privilege "...we now have 99 percent of the U.S. money supply owed back to private lenders at interest. The result is a growing federal debt, on which the interest burden alone will soon be more than the taxpayers can afford to pay. The debt is impossible to repay in the pre-Copernican world in which money is created as a debt to private banks....we have allowed our money to rotate in the firmament around an elite class of financiers, when it should be rotating around the collective body of the people...interest free."6 There are a number of major modern economies where money creation aids new industries, social welfare, and does not only benefit the profit motives of lenders. Japan, Malaysia, China, India are but a few. Government creation of money and debt allows many of these countries to forgive internal debt but honor foreign debt. These are defacto debt free currency systems. The Japanese economic model that evolved in the twentieth century has been called a "state-guided market system." The state determines the priorities and commissions the work, then hires the private enterprise to carry it out. The model overcame the defects of the communist system, which put ownership and control in the hands of the state. Chalmers Johnson, President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, wrote in 1989 that the closest thing to the Japanese model in the U.S. is the military/industrial complex. The government determines the programs and hires private companies to implement them. The U.S. military/industrial complex is a form of state-sponsored capitalism that produces one of the most lucrative and successful industries in the country.7 The Japanese model was, by the end of the 1980's, regarded as the leading economic and banking power in the world. That model also proved successful for the "Tiger" economies--South Korea, Malaysia , etc. State guided capitalism provided for the general welfare without destroying capitalist incentive. High economic growth, rising social security, and universal education in a market economy - it was the sort of "Common Wealth" America's Founding Fathers had endorsed. But the model represented a major threat to the international bankers' system of debt-based money and IMF loans. To diffuse this threat, the Bank of Japan was pressured by Washington to take measures that would increase the yen's value against the dollar and reduce Japan's trade surplus with the U.S. The surplus was being used to fund social and economic development in Japan and in developing Asian countries.8 By 1987, the Bank of Japan (pressured by Washington) had cut interest rates to a low of 2.5 percent. The result was a flood of "cheap" money that was turned into quick gains on the rising Tokyo stock market, producing an enormous stock market bubble.9 Engdhal writes: "No sooner did Tokyo act to cool down the speculative fever, than the major Wall Street investment banks, led by Morgan Stanley and Salomon Bros. began using exotic derivatives to short the Japanese market. Within months Japanese stocks had lost nearly $5 trillion in paper value.10 In sum we cannot have in the same fiscal year, under the current system of borrowing at interest: national health care reform, rehabilitation of our infrastructure, free, private and public universal education, a modern fully resourced military, and fully funded research on cancer, heart disease, autism, etc. All of these "needs" can only be funded through existing public, state and local institutions with national, debt free currency issued by the Federal Government as provided for in the Constitution. (1. See, "The Web of Debt", p. 245) (2. Stephen Zarlenga, "The Lost Science of Money" The Mythology Of Money - The Story of Power. American Monetary Institute Charitable Trust, 2002) (3. E. G. Spauldinng, "A Resource of War", (repr.., CN:Greenwood, 1971), p.37. (4. J. G. Randall, "The Civil War and Reconstruction, edit. D. David, (Boston: Heath & Co. 1937, 2nd edition 1961), pp.3-11. (5. "E M. Lerner, in Milton Freidman's "Studies in the Quantity theory of Money, (Uiv. Chicago Press, 1956). (6. Ellen H. Brown, "The Web of Debt", Third Millennium Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2007.) (7. Chalmers Johnson, "How America's Crony Capitalists Ruined their Rivals," Los Angeles Times (May 7, 1999). (8 Ibid) (9.Ellen H. Brown, The Web of Debt, p253). (10. William Engdahl, "A Century of War" (New York: Paul & Co. 1993), page 229. |
5 | e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00007-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Rules: No kritiks or semanticsBoP sharedContention: Privatization of Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB) would be disastrous due to risk, the need to raise taxes and its contribution to the national debt.http://www.youtube.com...Risk: Looking at past recessions, stock market crashes and changing monetary policy in just the last 30 years proves there's risk involved in changing Social Security RIB to a Private Plan (PP). A person can lose initial investment as well as gains in the markets. The early 1980's recession was due to monetary policy [1]. In August 1987 markets began to slide, by Oct. 19th, Black Monday, the market took a 22.5% loss in one day; measured total fall of 36.7% [2]. In 1990-92 there was the S&L crisis with a Fed bail out [3]. The DOT com bubble burst of the 90's is another example [4, 5]. Lastly, the more recent 2008 housing and financial crash where the stock market fell 2400 points in a week [6]. At each occurrence those with mature investments ready to retire took a big hit. Waves of unemployment resulted with decreased or halted contributions, and sometimes liquidation of retirement assets was enacted to stay afloat. In the last crash, those within 10 years, or broaching retirement loss 20% of their retirement investment with little or no time to recoup losses. Either way, that money is lost never to return; recoup means to get to a previously held level [7]. If you retire during an economic down turn you may not have sufficient funds to last. The risk defeats the purpose of the social security safety net. Under Funding Current Insurance Liabilities: Shifting funds to individual accounts, a PP, would take away funds from the current millions of spouses, dependent children of the deceased, as well as the disabled [8]. Furthermore, current influx of funds supports the now retired. How would the government fund current RIB payments of the near future and presently retired? A PP would only apply to those coming into the work force anew. All those currently working and contributing to the traditional RIB would be a part of the old system for decades to come. The Social Security RIB is estimated to take 75 years for complete solvency if privatization is enacted [14]. No one has a crystal ball on the changing tide of the economy, the government or the will of the people over that span of time. For a PP to be implemented the Gov would need to decrease current payouts and borrow to cover current liabilities with the diversion of taxes going to individual accounts [17], also raise payroll taxes [11]. Currently a portion, approximately 1 out of 5 SS dollars, goes into the SS Trust Fund to pay future benefits [9]. If current money goes into individual accounts contributions to the Trust Fund will cease and its present balance will be depleted far more quickly that the expected 2058 [10, 15]. A.) Net Loss: To fund current and near future payments government borrowing and cut in services will not be enough. A raise in SS taxes would be needed. Monies will go into PPs for the future and the tax increase will support the current pool as well as subsidize low income workers contributing to PPs to ensure minimum retirement income [14 p.27]. Privatization will have the payer contributing to both ends rather than the current pay-as-you formula. The increase in tax against balance in private accounts could produce a negative gain effect [13]. Government borrowing for transition cost, which is estimated to be 10 trillion, will contribute greatly to the already ballooning national debt [14 p.29]. Various proposals have been made on how privatization would be structured, either by a centralized government entity or open market competition. I'll examine the lesser of two evils in this round.Issues with Centralized Privatization: A centralized government plan would certainly decrease some of the administrative and broker's fee associated in typical investment market purchases, but who will decide what the options for privatized accounts will be? Financial institutions will have political influence in Washington [15, 16]. Considering the S&L debacle of the early 90's, the financial industry's complicity in the 2008 crash and following bail out at tax payer expense, they can't be trusted to act in our best interest. The lure of all working Americans contributing to private accounts where profits that can be made is too tempting. To say a reoccurrence of a stock market or financial institution crash and bail out will not occur again is a fallacy; history has bore this out [14]. Not only will we, the tax payer, be bailing out the financial sector again, loose all or most of what is in our PPs but, also have to pay to replenish the system for it to continue.1. 1. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu...2. 2. http://www.stockpickssystem.com...3. 3. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu....4. 4. http://www.investors.com...5. 5. http://www.thebubblebubble.com...6. 6. http://money.usnews.com...7. 7. https://www.ebri.org...8. 8. http://www.disabilitysecrets.com...9. 9. https://en.wikipedia.org...10. 10. http://www.npr.org...11. 11. http://www.nytimes.com...12. 12. http://www.ncpssm.org...13. 13. http://www.fedsmith.com...14. 14. http://www.actuary.org...15. 15. http://business.time.com...16. 16. http://www.ourfuture.org... 17. 17. http://www.brookings.edu... |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00004-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security Private social security accounts are voluntary. |
45 | 652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00002-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The Penny Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes. |
45 | 953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished That's too bad that you stepped down. It's okay if you don't want to participate, but I would have liked to at least hear your arguments. Oh, well. I guess I don't have much to do here anymore. |
5 | cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00055-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Privatizing social security helps the poor. Michael Tanner. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. July 26th, 1996: "Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs." |
28 | 94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00004-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should be legalized Prostitution is the oldest profession. It is not exactly the noblest or most favorable occupation but I think that it should be legalized for the sake of making it safer and taxable. One only needs to look back at alcohol prohibition to see the negative implications that the criminalization of prostitution or any other activity of vice can attribute. Because prostitution is criminal, it is controlled by criminals, which gives rise to abuse and human trafficking. If prostitution was mainstreamed, regulated, and had an acceptable quality control, it could be one of the most profitable industries of American economy. Since it is illegal and unregulated, prostitution is extremely risky for all involved parties and criminals are the only people who benefit. Ron Paul once said that if you made heroin legal tomorrow, people wouldn't uncontrollably run out and do heroin. The same is true of prostitution. It wouldn't suddenly become something every girl wants to do as a job and every male indeed will partake. Legalization would reduce communicable disease in this country and increase economic stimulation. |
17 | 6c710062-2019-04-18T18:52:01Z-00000-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal Still no warrant, or empirical evidence from my opponent to prove their claim! |
Subsets and Splits