query_id
stringlengths 1
41
| doc_id
stringlengths 1
109
| query
stringlengths 2
5.5k
| document
stringlengths 0
122k
|
|---|---|---|---|
2 | a0eb865c-2019-04-18T14:04:27Z-00004-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | Nuclear Power is Safe, and Should be Used Until Fusion Power is Mastered I am Pro, so I will be supporting the claim that nuclear power is safe and should see continued use until fusion power (or some other form of clean, abundant power) is mastered. Please cite all sources, claims without citations will not be taken seriously. |
15 | e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00097-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | Animal rights promotes the true science of humans and animals as kin Animal testing and the subjugation of animals undermines a fundamental scientific reality; that humans and animals are kin. With humans and Chimpanzees sharing 99.4% of their genetic code, and humans and mice sharing 99% of their genetic code, it is important to recognize that humans are, on a scientific basis, the kin of animals. The testing of animals undermines this scientific understanding by subjugating animals. This is harmful to broader scientific progression in society. |
17 | 6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00008-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legal I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana. |
7 | 5d677f8e-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | We should redo the death penalty. QUESTION: With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions? My opponent offers a new system.I think it is problematic: 1.Juries are not always right, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still up to opinion. If I think you did something, that's beyond my reasonable doubt. One person might say "Guilty!" and another might say "Not guilty!" Both feel like they know the answer. This shows that beyond a reasonable doubt is quite subjective. 2.The death penalty is biased against black people. "The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black." https://www.commondreams.org... Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit: "African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in "group exonerations." We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes. I. Murder : Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people." http://www.law.umich.edu... Furthermore: "Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable, yet between 1973 and 2004 in the US, 118 prisoners who had been sentenced to death were later released on grounds of innocence [8]. Of 197 convictions in the US that were subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence, 14 were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row [9]. Racial bias in sentencing likely accounts for much of this error; more than half of the exonerees were African Americans, and the rate of death sentences in the US among those convicted of killing a white victim is considerably higher than for murderers of blacks. Given this potential for fatal error, how can any objective person support the death penalty, which allows for no correction? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... If there is even a small possibility that someone innocent could die, we should not use such a system. 3.It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Common Dreams: "The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades." https://www.commondreams.org... Furthermore: "According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel... ...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole." https://www.forbes.com...... Death penalty = more $$ 4.Lethal injections are not humane. There is evidence that people feel pain as they are dying. One specific example is the botched execution in Oklahoma. "The current article by Koniaris and colleagues gives further cause for concern by questioning whether, even if "perfectly" administered, the protocols would achieve their stated aim of causing death without inflicting inhumane punishment... These lethal injection protocols use the barbiturate thiopental (intended to sedate and to suppress breathing), the neuromuscular blocker pancuronium (which paralyzes, causing respiratory arrest but also preventing agonal movements that might indicate suffering), and the electrolyte potassium (intended to cause cardiac arrest). Such protocols are intended to provide redundancy, such that each drug is given at a dose that would by itself cause death. However, in analyzing data from actual executions, Koniaris and colleagues report that thiopental and potassium do not consistently result in death. In fact, individuals undergoing execution have continued to breathe after the injection of thiopental, and their hearts have continued to beat following injection of potassium; in these cases, the authors conclude, it is quite likely that those being executed have experienced asphyxiation while conscious and unable to move, and possibly an intense burning pain throughout the body from the potassium injection." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 1 & 2: No, it won"t. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty requires a long trial. Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting. ADeciding to use the death penalty in a case can cost more than jailing the person. 3, 4, & 5: The incidents you specify are horrendous but that doesn"t make the death penalty O.K. This is utter hypocrisy. How can we say "Don"t murder!" and then say "But we"re going to murder you." "6" Stepping in means jailing. It means cutting people off from society temporarily or permanently should the need arise. NOT murder. "7" That sort of thinking is abhorrent. Yes, they"re evil, but who are we to decide what to do with somebody else"s life? I"d rather nobody died but at the end of the day, if the person wanted to die they could do it themselves"they certainly don"t need the state. Saying we have the right to kill ANYBODY is absurd. "8" Are you saying this is population control? Murder is not the way we control population. "9" Alright, if you"re going to bring religion into this"fine. 1.The Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy quotes are from the Old Testament. Back then, times were very different. If you stole, they cut your hand off. This is because people believed harsh punishments deterred crime. Then Jesus came and he preached forgiveness. Your Matthew quote is taken out of context. If you read the whole thing it says: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Jesus says that we should love each other, not hate. He said don't do "An Eye for an Eye", instead we need to forgive. The Bible seems to understand that murder is not okay. How did they get it so right? 2.Bible says thou shalt not kill so how is murdering people acceptable by Christian standards? We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there? |
41 | 46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER |
43 | aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00001-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water is harmful Clearly me and my opponent have a difference of opinion and for this reason I will end this debate. |
43 | 51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00002-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org... |
38 | d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00006-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical Marijuana However, I wish to lay out one additional rule:In the event of a forfeiture, the voter will award the opposing opponent a 7-point victory. I also accept my opponent's statement about opinions. They shall only be used when supported by factual evidence. I look forward to this debate with WilliamsP and hope is turns out well. |
7 | d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote My opponent brings up some new argument at first about how he is trying to focus on a new generation and show kids/younger people the harmful effects of alcohol and committing crimes. However there is already a program that trys to decrease the demand of drugs which is called DARE and so far it hasn't been that successful. I am not saying it's not a good program to have I am just saying that as long as Americans continue to demand illegal drugs, drug cartels and other organizations will keep sending them here. Also my opponent must realize that most felons who commit crimes like theft, which is the most common one, do a lot of these crimes due to what they are exposed to, or because they are poor and need food. So you can't just tell them "drugs are bad" and expect them to listen. You have to improve there economic conditions and give them a replacement for drugs, something more appealing that isn't dangerous. This logic is the same reason why the war on drugs doesn't work, you can't just remove all the drugs and except them to stop, the reason why fights increase after the drugs are removed is because they still have a desire for the drugs, and therefore will do whatever it takes to get them. My opponent try's to attack my contention saying taxation without representation, but he mentions the argument and goes completely over it. The argument is just saying that since they pay certain taxes to the government and for some of the people who work in the government they should be able to vote for people in the government. It's just a logical argument that has no holes in it. He skips over the argument he trys to make and again says that 5.83 million people don't matter. He is dismissing American citizens. That is like me saying "oh forget about the unemployed they only make 5% of the American population lets focus on most Americans who at least have a job and can actually benefit the economy." He claims that my ex felons contention helps him but it doesn't actually, it shows that 90% of ex-felons who get jobs don't go back to jail so why punish those and not allow them to vote if they are proper citizens? The contention is pointing out that not all ex-felons go back to jail. Main argument against my opponent: is how he is basically saying that we should leave ex-felons alone and let them go with punishments some that last forever just to show people what happens when they don't listen? First of all it is common sense that when you commit crimes you can end up in jail, and a lot of people realize that a year sentence or so results in a Felony, they don't need extra things to know this. The main argument against this idea is that ex-felons can be primary sources with or without voting. What I mean by this is that ex-felons can share their stories so society will still learn the consequences of actions from ex-felons themselves. Giving them the right to vote will still leave the other punishments they have and still make felony a popular sentence well known among Americans. Conclusion: The reason why I win is because my opponent never really goes by the resolution, he try's to broaden the debate and he hasn't shown why ex-felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. He also how voting can't provide any of the benefits he mentions that would help society. Also my case structure overall was better then his as well. In conclusion vote for me because I followed the resolution, and proved that there is no reason not to allow ex-felons to vote. |
23 | 29343e58-2019-04-18T12:48:29Z-00001-000 | Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? | Human euthanasia is viable option for palliative care Euthanasia, assisted suicide, should be legal in all 50 states. |
17 | 711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as "a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant" and "a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared." Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as "a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive." [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that "Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual"s right to care for him or herself"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov... |
21 | 43446f45-2019-04-15T20:22:44Z-00016-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Where the US has used military force, it has largely done it to uphold human rights and international peace, security and prosperity. On closer inspection, it is evident that while many of these interventions espoused humanitarian principles, they were primarily designed to advance US strategic and geopolitical interests. Critics have been right to argue that the Iraq war was fought to gain strategic control of Middle Eastern oil and to dismantle the state-dominated economic structures of the region. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and overthrowing a dictatorship could not have been a primary consideration, given America's support for authoritarian regimes and dictatorships across the world (such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia). These contradictions can be seen in the recent Libya conflict, where the US suddenly endorsed regime change despite years of supporting Colonel Gaddafi. Other 'humanitarian interventions' have similarly been motivated in large part by self-interested strategic and geopolitical considerations. |
40 | e03e7a04-2019-04-18T14:42:05Z-00006-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | The Death Penalty Should be Abolished Hello all. In this debate, I will present several key arguments in opposition to the institution of capital punishment, or the death penalty. I will specifically refer to the situation in the United States.I believe the death penalty is a stain on American society. It shows that we are not as morally or fiscally concerned as we should be. I will attempt to show this with these three arguments.I. The Death Penalty is UnjustThe job of our government should be to eliminate injustice to promote prestige and a morally concerned society. However, with the existence of the death penalty, the government is failing to live up to this role. My argument to prove that the death penalty is unjust is as follows:Definitionsrevenge: the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. (Google)just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. (Google)Argument1) The death penalty is based on revenge (as defined above).2) Revenge is immoral.3) Therefore, the death penalty is immoral. (From 1, 2)4) The death penalty is unjust. (From 3)On Premise 1The death penalty is based on revenge, as it is inflicting death upon criminals that inflict pain and suffering on others. This revenge is instituted by the federal/state governments (I am referring specifically to the situation in the US in this debate).On Premise 2Revenge is widely considered to be immoral. The premise of revenge is to inflict near, identical, or even excessively more pain than the criminal caused the victim, and that is just escalating the amount of immoral action (think Gandhi's eye-for-an-eye principle).On Premise 3The death penalty, because it is based on an immoral principle (revenge), is an immoral practice.On Premise 4As 'just' includes the condition of moral fairness and righteousness, the death penalty can be concluded to be unjust.II. The Death Penalty is ExpensiveThe process of capital trial, containment on death row and eventual execution is more expensive than keeping the criminal in prison for life, as proven in numerous surveys. [1] This is clearly unfair for taxpayers, who end up paying a lot more than they would otherwise (if criminals that would be indicted of capital punishment would instead be sentenced to life in prison, the cheaper and more moral answer).III. The Death Penalty Does Not Deter CrimeCountless studies have shown that the existence of capital punishment as a penalty for serious crime does not add on to the deterrence effect of prolonged time in prison. Another study has shown that there is no correlation between the death penalty's institution and the murder of police officers.In fact, in states without the death penalty, there are lower rates of crime. Therefore, it is clear that the death penalty does not deter crime or add any sort of effectiveness to the fight against crime. [2]---------------------ConclusionFor all these reasons, it is clear that the death penalty should be abolished. First, it is clearly an immoral principle and should be treated as such; it is wrong for our government to institute a principle against basic morals. Second, the institution of capital punishment, capital trial and containment on death row awaiting execution costs substantially more than life in prison. Third, the death penalty is not shown to deter crime, or have any effect on the murder of police officers or the crime rate, in fact, states that have abolished the death penalty have lower rates of crime.It is resolved that the death penalty ought to be abolished.---------------------Sources: [1] http://deathpenalty.org...;[2] http://deathpenalty.org...* Both of these sources are credible and are publications of veritable studies and data compiled by professionals. |
22 | 2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00005-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | every problem does not have a solution thanks everyone for giving your views what made me start a debate over this was off course to come up with nice ways to shot down problems. but till now i have faced problems who's solution simply do not exits. there are some processes which are considered irreversible , i hope everyone's getting me if my friends have quite a knowledge of thermodynamics. the same applies to philosophy as well . SO WHAT IF WE CONSIDER THESE IRREVERSIBLE PROCESSES AS PROBLEMS. i know it would go a bit into science but just for having a nice example: when you transfer energy like transfering electricity, some energy is lost as heat. PROBLEM: are there ways to get that heat lost back? i guess no. now if u question the genre of the problem, then that might put you out of the debate coz the argument was..there exists problems , not having solution. such problems exists in philosophy as well as in all other fields. |
13 | 6abdbffe-2019-04-18T15:37:17Z-00004-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Resolved: hydraulic fracturing should continue to be used Intro: we can call agree energy is important and is needed to thrive as a nation so for that reason I go neg today is because, hydraulic fracturing has been the best way to obtain energy and contributes heavily to the economy it is a more effective way to save the environment rather than less advanced ways to get natural gas and petroleum Intro part 2: There are some negative effects of fracking undoubtedly. Of course there need to be improvements like finding a way to completely minimize environmental impact but currently this is our best option in domestic energy and also a good temporary job creator while we explore other energy avenues. Solar energy is generally useless currently as the most high tech panels are only reaching a little above 30% efficiency while wind energy requires certain conditions and windmills. Not saying they can't be improved but until they are fracking is our best option until renewable sources are optional and fully functional. 1.Direct Economic Impact "The direct benefit of increasing oil and gas production includes the value of increased production attributable to the technology. In 2011, the USA produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. Taking an average price of $4.24 per thousand cubic feet, that's a value of about $36 billion, due to shale gas alone. "The Yale study group also looked at the potential benefit to consumers of replacing oil consumption with natural gas by converting fleets from gasoline and diesel to compressed gas or LNG. The math works like this - It takes 6 mcf of gas to get the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. The authors assume an average natural gas price of $5 per mcf (nearly double today"s price) and an average oil price of $100 per barrel (about $20 more than today). Thus, you need $30 worth of natural gas to replace $100 of oil, a savings of $70 per barrel. Replacing just 1 million barrels per day of oil demand with natural gas would save $70 million a day, or nearly $26 billion a year. 2.More efficient then coal According to the Environmental Protection Agency, natural gas-fired electricity generates half the carbon dioxide of coal-fired production. It is also cheaper than coal when it comes to usage 3.Can help with foreign issues/relations "Fracturing has eliminated the need for natural-gas exports from Iran, removing Iran"s ability to use energy diplomacy as a means to strengthen its regional power or to buttress its nuclear aspirations. Shale gas will also ease American and Chinese dependence on Middle Eastern natural-gas supplies, limiting the incentives for geopolitical and commercial competition between the two largest consuming countries and providing both with new opportunities to diversify their energy supply away from coal"whose carbon footprint, air particulate and mercury pollution, and water use burdens are far higher than those of natural gas. 4.Uses less water 90% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid is water, and around 5 to 7% sand. Most of the alleged chemicals in frack fluid are slickeners. Hydraulic fracturing surprisingly uses less water. Fracking requires just 0.6 to 5.8 gallons of water per million Btu of energy produced. By comparison, "renewable" and "sustainable" corn-based ethanol requires 2,510 to 29,100 gallons per million Btu of usable energy. Biodiesel from soybeans consumes 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per million Btu. Also, in a study of 200 water wells near fracking sites, the water quality stayed the same before and after except in one case. The myth about fracking causing earthquakes has not been confirmed. 5.Fracking directly doesn"t cause leaks "The process of fracking is not the problem, but rather poor maintenance. 6 to 7% percent of wells are built incorrectly, causing the leaks. A mobile water evaporator, for example, can eliminate the wastewater before it leaks. So basically a solution would be to ensure better construction of the wells and improve maintenance not remove fracking. 6.Fracturing can continue to provide jobs "There are 1.7 million jobs supported by fracking, and jobs will increase to 3 million by the end of the decade Examples of jobs provided, providing tax revenues to the government and creating much-needed high-paying American jobs. Engineering and surveying, construction, hospitality, equipment manufacturing and environmental permitting etc. "$2.5 trillion in cumulative federal, state and local tax receipts between 2012 and 2035. - "Looking at GDP growth, the IHS study found that, 'the shale gas contribution to GDP was $76.9 billion in 2010, will increase to $118 billion by 2015, and will nearly triple to $231 billion in 2035,' all in 2010 dollars. Responses/extra things for speech 1.No ground contamination / is safe 2.Even though 90% of oil and gas wells in the United States (one million wells total) have undergone fracturing to stimulate production, there have been no confirmed cases of contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Water is safe 3.Current industry well design practices ensure multiple levels of protection between any sources of drinking water and the production zone of an oil and gas well. "In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater." (Fox News, April 27, 2013) And: "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water." (Congressional testimony, May 24, 2011) "A 2011 report for the Secretary of Energy counted 19 times that water from hydraulic fracturing operations has been released, out of thousands of wells drilled. None of these instances included groundwater contamination. Hydraulic fracturing allows improved recovery of valuable energy resources and production of greater volumes of hydrocarbons from each well. The size of the area drained by a hydraulically fractured well is larger than wells that are not stimulated by the process. Therefore, fewer oil and gas wells need to be drilled if hydraulic fracturing is utilized, which in turn minimizes waste volumes and surface disturbance associated with oil and gas drilling. Scenario for if the so called spills were to happen and the low cost compared to the economic benifits "costs for a scenario that assumes 100 spills a year out of 10,000 new wells drilled each year. They figure that if 5,000 gallons of polluted hydraulic fracturing fluid were to spill into a field, the cost to scrape up a hypothetical 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and dispose of it at an offsite landfill would be on the order of $2.5 million. Furthermore, if potable water wells were polluted by hydraulic fracturing, the cost to haul in a potable water supply and drill new water wells would be about $5,000 per well. Given 100 incidents in a year, the clean-up costs associated with hydraulic fracturing accidents would be roughly $250 million. Comparing $250 million a year in phantom damages against the $100 billion in savings and economic benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that benefits exceed costs to by 400-to-1. Website links: "http://www.americanthinker.com... |
22 | b9783de3-2019-04-18T14:53:56Z-00004-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Self Harm and Suicide Are Not the Solution... 1. SuicideHerodotus wrote: "When life is so burdensome, death has become for man a sought-after refuge".Suicide is the solution to a specific problem. It is a violent, irreversible solution but that does not make it any more a solution. It is fundamentally a solution to a world that has become intolerable to the person committing suicide. Removing oneself from an intolerable solution, even in such a permanent manner, is a valid response, particularly since it is often a lack of personal control over the conditions of the individual that result in action as drastic as suicide. Suicide can be seen as a last effort to exert some bit of control over the conditions which the individual finds themself in. It is escape.Suicide is a right to which all human beings are to be afforded. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it, "They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person." Suicide is a final defiant assertion of freedom in the face of circumstances which have conspired to take that freedom away. Self-harm is a coping method for intolerable situations, a less final way to deal with the loss of will. Whether that is abuse, others unrealistic image of you, spiraling collapse of everything you ever built, self-harm is a way to assert your ability to control something, even if that is only your own flesh. Arguing that Self-Harm and Suicide are wrong, or will harm those around you, or are not a way to escape your problems, is a surefire way to excerbate the underlying problem and make people with suicidal ideation feel yet more trapped, yet more helpless. It can only make things worse down the line, even if it might reduce outward signs in the short term. The suicidal individual will remain in that trap, in their own personal hell, until they finally remove themselves unless you fix the underlying issue. |
3 | bd2d1f0f-2019-04-18T19:44:29Z-00000-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | illegal immigrants My opponent has not offered any rebuttals to my arguements, and nothing but a borderline rascist opening statement to argue off, i'll continue attacking the problems of illegal immigrantion within the United States on my terms. Illegal immigration now makes it extremely diffiuclt for legal immigrants to enter the USA! (1) For centuries not just decades, the Canada/US Border was a friendly place. Canadians wishing to drive over to visit friends, do some shopping, or even spend a few months could do so with relative ease. In fact, as long as you declared your reasons for visiting you could walk across the border! Especially the St.Stephen New Brunswick/Calais,Maine border. (1) Now, to fly from Canada to the USA you need a passport. By September, 2008 you will need a passport to drive over the border; along with your drivers license. Permanent residents of Canada have it even harder. Just two years ago, a permanent resident of Canada could just drive over the US border by showing a drivers license, now they need to show a PR card too. (1) The main reason why illegal immigration is unfair is because illegal aliens are a burden to taxpayers for several reasons. For instance, illegal immigrants are typically entitled to free social services. For example, hospitals and emergency rooms are obligated to treat all patients even if they can not or do not pay for it. Illegal aliens can receive welfare checks and food stamps. Sometimes, governments assist illegal immigrants with job searches and transportation to jobs. The children of illegal immigrants, who are often also illegal immigrants, are entitled to education thus overcrowding schools and decreasing the quality of the education. Furthermore, it is perceived that illegal immigrants do not pay any or as much in taxes compared with legal residents, thus they should not receive free social services. In truth, illegal aliens do pay at least some of the taxes that regular citizens and legal immigrants do pay. The actual statistics and numbers of what is not paid are impossible to calculate. (2) Furthermore, illegal immigrants are attributed with job losses for legal residents especially for lower income jobs. In addition, higher crime rates are also sometimes associated with illegal aliens. Illegal immigration is even unfair to the illegal aliens, since they are politically and economically restricted. And finally if and when illegal immigrants are caught, these illegal aliens could be sent to jail and/or deported from the country, again at a cost to the taxpayers. (2) Here are Ten Reasons Why (3): 1. Illegals working in many industries - not just those who do cleaning jobs - will work for far less than legal citizens, causing unfair competition for businesses that DO obey the law and employ only legal citizens. 2. Illegal immigrants are often paid under the table. This is tax fraud and it costs the U.S. Taxpayer billions each year - billions that are made up for in higher taxes for everyone, including corporate taxes. 3. Illegal immigrants are often not fully trained in U.S. safety standards, and frequently do not understand enough English to read printed safety regulations, causing a hazardous work environment. 4. Legal immigrants and the working poor are often most hurt by illegal immigrants who drive down wages in traditional low-wage jobs, which may cause a spike in increased need for welfare and unemployment benefits. 5. A vast majority of illegal immigrants do not pay any state or Federal income taxes. This has put a strain on local, state and Federal governments and has caused business taxes to rise to help maintain infrastructure such as hospitals, roads and schools. 6. Illegal immigrants are unlikely to report theft, corruption, harassment and abuse by other employees, because they fear being turned into immigration authorities, causing unsafe or illegal practices in your workplace to go unreported. Being unaware of these abuses can significantly increase your legal liability. 7. Illegal immigrants may be deported or otherwise return home at any time. That could cost business owners like you all the time and investment you put into training those workers. 8. A Federal raid on your business by immigration authorities that subsequently discovers illegal employees, and the resulting negative publicity that would cause to you and your business, isn't worth it. 9. Hiring illegal immigrants sends a signal to your employees and customers that you condone cheating and support the exploitation of other human beings. Do you? 10. Obeying Federal laws regarding hiring only legal citizens is the ethical thing to do. Behind many of the nation's millions of undocumented workers are someone else's documents. To get a job, illegal immigrants need a Social Security number, and they often borrow one. As victim Melody Millet is fond of saying, U.S. citizens are being forced to share their identities with undocumented immigrants to give corporate America a steady supply of cheap labor. (4) Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans are right now sharing their identities with immigrants and don't know it. It is the dirty little secret of the immigration issue: By not dealing directly with the undocumented worker situation, the U.S government is actually encouraging identity theft. In fact, one can argue that the origins of the identity theft epidemic can be traced to the immigration issue. (4) The scope of this problem is vast. Every year, nearly 9 million people pay their taxes using the wrong Social Security number. The name used on W-2 tax forms used by employers doesn't match the name on file with the Social Security Administration. There can be many reasons why -- a data entry typo by a human resources department, a woman changes her name after marriage and forgets to report it, or a man uses someone else's SSN to get a job. (4) When it comes to the impact of illegal immigration, terrorism must be at the top of the list due to its potential to directly harm the greatest number of Americans. It is worth noting that three of the four terrorist pilots in the 9/11 attack were in the country illegally. 9/11 was a precursor. The next big incident could be far greater and kill many more Americans. (5) A recent Homeland Security report, A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, reports that in 2005 at least 850 people from countries of "special interest" were apprehended crossing the southern border. How many more successfully crossed is unknown. How many actual terrorists have crossed is unknown. We do know, however, that they are there - see Al-Qaida Operative Nabbed Near Mexican Border. (5) By the way, "countries of special interest" is government-speak for terrorism conducting and sponsoring countries. (5) As can be seen from the aforementioned studies and references, many illegal aliens are not your casual immigration violating, ID theft committing, law breaker. Many are recidivists – a.k.a. career criminals, like Juan Leonardo Quintero, who was deported after being convicted of indecency with a child, but who later came back and then just recently killed a Houston cop in cold blood, leaving a widow and five now fatherless children. (6) In conclusion, i'd like to state that my many sources (and her lack of) shows that illegal immigration is currently a problem within the United States. Vote for Negative. Citations: (1) http://www.helium.com... (2) http://www.philforhumanity.com... (3) http://www.scribd.com... (4) http://redtape.msnbc.com... (5) http://www.usillegalaliens.com... (6) http://www.usillegalaliens.com... |
21 | 80500e82-2019-04-18T16:59:01Z-00002-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate shift Pros CasePoint A: Climate shift is realSub point 1: Scientific consensus"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U. S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. " Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by HumanitySub point 1: Scientific Consensus"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. '"(3)"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible. "(5)"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. "(2)"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. "(2)"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. "(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). "(2)"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. "(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. " (2)"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either. " (2)"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions. "(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources1. . http://www.sciencemag.org...2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...3. . http://www.nrdc.org...4. . http://www.mfpp.org...5. . http://www.edf.org...6. . http://climate.nasa.gov...7. . http://climate.nasa.gov...8. . http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...9. . http://www.usatoday.com...10. . http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...11. . http://climate.nasa.gov... |
27 | fffab27a-2019-04-18T13:50:33Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | American Gun Control My side will argue that a Gun Ban will save lives and be better for citizens. We wont be arguing for unconstutionality however.1. It wouldnt affect personal defense situationsPeople using guns for personal safety is extremely rare. A study recently conducted that out of the thousands of gun murders only .1 percent of those killings were cases where self defense was being used. A few years ago the Department of Justice: Bureau of Statistics released that in between the years of 2007-2011 the chances of guns being used in self defense were .8 percentThat means that since the recent study the chances of using a gun for self defense has dropped down .7 percent in recent years. The case for personal defense has no impact since the amount of cases of personal defense are far outnumbered by the cases of guns being used for crimes and murders2. Sucides would be reducedIn a 2010 study over 38,000 americans committed suicide. What was their weapon of choice? Over half of the victims used guns. Guns are painless and quick. Many americans do not commit suicide because they are afraid. Now of course my opponent will claim that people who want to commit suicide do it with any option. Actually if there is no gun then the percentage of killing themselves reduce drastically. For Example using a knife to slit your throat. If you want to commit suicide with that instrument than you only have a 70 percent chance to kill yourself. Unfortuantley with a gun its over 99 percent. Also the fact remains that if your household has a gun you or your family have more than a 400 perent chance to commit suicide. 16,857 fire arm deaths in states with low gun control and 4,578 in high control areas. Not only this but the sucide rates for non firearm deaths stayed approxiamitley the same at 9000.3. AccidentsA gun is something that is extremely dangerous. One accidental click of the trigger and you could maim,kill or seriously hurt someone in the vicinity of that shot. Childhood deaths are in the hundreds because parents dont know where the gun is at or if its loaded. Many parents load their guns because they fear they dont have time not to have the clip already in the gun. Because of this childhood deaths are simply the norm. Not only that but the amount of gun accidents is set to overpass the amount of automobile accidents in the near future.4. Gun Bans WorkAn interesting arguement from conservatives is that Chicago is the worst place in the country and its because of gun control. However this is very misleading and is far from the truth. . https://www.washingtonpost.com...If you scroll down in this article you will see 2 graphs. The first is the obvious one the conservatives are pointing at. Its death and injuries past January 2013. However if you scroll down further you find the graph that does the real talking. Its mass shootings deaths and injuries. As you can see the MASS majority of these shootings happen in the south the most dangerous one being Renegade mountain, Tenessee. Back to you ConSouces:. https://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...http://pediatrics.about.com... |
16 | 718ff5e0-2019-04-18T15:43:54Z-00005-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | most states should not yet legalize pot pot can cause problems such as mental health issues. they've done studies on this. this just causes disability and welfare spending to increase a lot more. most states should be monitoring colorado and washington to see how much the bad effects arise in those states. |
45 | 9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00001-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Choose any Topic!!!! Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam |
40 | 9ef66e59-2019-04-18T15:04:49Z-00001-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized. -=Rebuttals=-"The death penalty should be legalized as it lowers criminal rate, increases national security, and protects citizens"These claims will be discussed later."It lowers criminal rate, and murder rate"1. I've provided a host of evidence stating otherwise, that the death penalty does not deter crime. Cross apply the Donohue and Wolfers evidence to counter this claim.2. Evidence further proves it does not deter crime. Michael Booth, journalist for the Denver Post details, "The Death Penalty Information Center points to higher murder rates in states that have the death penalty as proof the sentencing threat does not deter crime." [1] The article goes on to cite Cornell University law professor John Blume, "There's no credible evidence of deterrence." Max Ehrenfreund emphasizes this notion in the Washington Post, stating, "Fagan and two collaborators recently compared murder rates in Hong Kong, where capital punishment was abolished in 1993, and Singapore, where a death sentence is mandatory for murder and other crimes and is typically administered within a year and a half. The researchers found little difference between the two Asian metropolises." [2] The Hong Kong and Singapore study [3] shows little to no disparity between deterrence with or without the death penalty. Thus, the claim that capital punishment deters crime falls. The Washington Post article later references another study, being the one by Donohue and Wolfers.3. Removal and illegalization of the death penalty can is a superior crime deterrent. The North Carolina Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty explains how this works. "Over the past several years, there has been a steep drop-off in the use of the death penalty. No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006. The number of death sentences handed down by juries has been declining for years, and in 2012 for the first time, no one received the death penalty in North Carolina. Even prosecutors have declined to seek the death penalty in all but a handful of cases. Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped. Given this fact, there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime." [4]4. No evidence is used to back up his/her claim that each execution stops 5 murders.5. Criminals are obviously not too scared to commit crimes because of impending doom, primarily due to the fact that evidence shows no downward trend in criminal action as a result of the death penalty.'"Murderers can be executed, so it's safer for travel or public"1. Criminal activity will occur regardless of any punishment.2. Prison time can accomplish the same safety, security, and protection for its citizens without causing obligatory cyclical murder and being inherently inhumane in nature.3. Using the death penalty to provide security is hypocritical. Trying to keep person a safe by killing person b is contradictory.4. If a government values safety, use the money used for the death penalty to ramp up prison security and guard. The cost of the death penalty is exceptional. Kelly Phillips Erb of Forbes documents, "In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association. found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense." [5] Instead, this money could be used to heighten security at prisons, thus disallowing criminals to escape. Ultimately, that would ensure the same safety and security for citizens without murder and unnecessary death."Executions are not common and only used for crimes that have been stated to be punishable by execution."1. Supposed criminals are not always guilty of the crimes they have allegedly commited. Cross apply the evidence I brought stating that at a conservative estimate of 4.1% of death penalty victims are actually innocent of their conviction. 2. Convicts die innocently. In fact, the Huffington Post published an article detailing the problem. "The four authors [of the study] reviewed the outcomes of the 7,482 death sentences handed down from 1973 to 2004. Of that group, 117, or 1.6 percent, were exonerated [acquitted, released] But with enough time and resources, the authors concluded that at least 4.1 percent of death row inmates would have been exonerated. In other words, more than 200 other prisoners would have been cleared during those three decades." [6] Specifically, that number equates to 301 (rounded) dying innocently from the death penalty. This irrefutably proves inherent flaws with capital punishment, and exemplifies just how erroneous the system really is. Capital punishment is definitely fairly common (7,482 from 1973 to 2004) and not necessarily only used for specific crimes.3. Capital punishment use is increasing in variety. Cross apply the evidence from Amnesty Internation, where they explain that more and more countries are using the death penalty to punish even perceived threats. Even if the threats have not been confirmed, these convicts can be served capital punishment.-=Claims=-My opponent has not directly refuted any of my points. Allow me to bring those back up.Morality Argument:Capital punishment is immoral because:A. Ideology as such results in obligatory cyclical murderB. Capital punishment results in hypocrisy and contradiction of the current law.C. In short, it's murder.Inhumanity Argument:The death penalty is inhumane because:A. Pain is frequently torturousB. Torture is often executed while the patient is consciousC. Torture is internationally unaccpetable; the death penalty must be as well."Worthy" Crime Argument:This argument is fallible against capital punishment because:A. Capital punishment crimes deviate from standards.B. Common executions are unjustifiable based on predetermined crimes.C. Minors are not given a second chance.Innocence Argument:Innocence contradicts the death penalty because:A. Many convicts are killed innocentlyB. Justice systems are not just when they don't achieve justice.C. The lack of a just society allows for abuse to judicial systems as a whole.Deterrence Argument:Capital punishment does not deter crime because:A. Evidence suggests no correlation between capital punishment and decrease in crime rates.B. Evidence contrastly shows a decrease in crime rates when the death penalty was abolished.C. Evidence showing a trend of decreased crime in concurrency with capital punishment is fragile and not credible.Please note these arguments and consider them when voting. Good luck on further rounds! :)Sources:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] http://www.denverpost.com...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] http://papers.ssrn.com...[4] http://nccadp.org...[5] http://www.forbes.com...[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... |
7 | 351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00005-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States 1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement Con main argument so far is cost. Criminal justice is always expensive, but citizens think justice makes it worthwhile to prosecute serious crimes despite the cost. We should be willing to pay what it takes to obtain justice. Still, the claim that life sentences are cheaper is false. There are three elements of cost involved with a death penalty: 1. The court costs properly associated with extra scrutiny The claimed savings supposes that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole can be imposed without extra scrutiny. In fact, if there is any savings at all, it is small. Only about 6% of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project involved death row inmates. [4] They are apply a high level of scrutiny to crimes that would include life without parole. Moreover, inmates convicted of life without parole are certainly going to want to file every appeal possible to get the sentence reduced, and the government is obliged to pay the costs of the prosecution and the defense in those cases. The appeals in such case can go on for the life of the inmate. 2. The court costs incurred unreasonably in defending the laws that permit execution Much of the current costs of pursuing he death penalty involves challenges to the death penalty itself. Courts eager to overturn the death penalty are allowing appeals on such grounds as the drug used for the lethal injection must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. [8. http://www.truth-out.org...] The wording of the present resolution eliminates challenges to the death penalty itself, which can accomplished by legislation. 3. The costs of confining inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security The main costs are actually in housing the inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security confinement. Death row mainly involves a higher level of security, and that includes single-occupant cells rather than two-inmate cells. The premise of the cost savings is that murderers sentenced to life imprisonment rather than execution are safer, and hence may be mixed with the general inmate population. There are no grounds for that assumption. The convicted killer has a free pass to kill inmates or guards, or to escape and kill civilians. No extra penalty is available to deter such action, and data [5] shows there is serious threat. Con has offered as a solution to the problem of "free pass" killings is that extra-high security confinement be used to prevent it. That's exactly the cost that eliminating the death penalty is alleged to save. California is used as an example of the high costs. Virtually no one has been executed in California, due to obstructions sustained by California Courts. Consequently, nearly all inmates are kept in high security until they die of natural causes. Actually carrying out executions reduces those costs substantially. Ohio, for example, as much lower costs because they actually perform executions. A California official said, "They are much more willing to exercise their capital punishment system [in Ohio] than California, thus alleviating one of the pressures that our state wrestles with," [9. http://www.bloomberg.com... ] The net result is a minor cost increase is suffered by extra scrutiny, but very substantial savings are obtained by not having to maintain the inmate in maximum security for a lifetime. The death penalty saves money. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal I cited the case of parents executed in front of their children by a contract killer, and asked if justice demand the death penalty. Con brushed aside the question and said that being confined for life was punishment enough. Well, who gets to ultimately decide what is adequate? Juries decide when justice demands the death penalty. [10. http://abcnews.go.com...] In a democracy, the public ought to decide. About two-thirds of the states have the death penalty. As to life being worse, even serial killers are willing to plea bargain to get rid of the possibility of a death sentence. Neither the public nor the killers are confused about the issue. 2+. Execution saves innocent lives Con has not presented a single case of an innocent person being freed. I carefully spelled out why the 17 cases were people who would not necessarily have been executed, and even the Innocence Project itself makes no claim of lives saved. Even though no cases of wrongful executions are established, I granted that there were likely a few. Con cites the page I referenced as having no killings by escapees after 1989. There are, however, killing of guards and inmates after that date, and those count as unnecessary deaths. However, I had noted that the page was an incomplete list. A web search reveals many recent cases. in 2008 an escape killed his wife and child http://www.denverpost.com... in 1997 an escapee killed his wife http://www.sacbee.com... in 2010, two escaped murderers killed an elderly couple http://www.blogforarizona.com... in 1999 a convicted murder killed a prison guard http://amarillo.com... I found eight additional cases of convicted murderers who escaped being recaptured before they killed again. Con's claim that modern technology precludes escape is wrong. No one keeps a careful list, so there are probably many more lives lost in avoiding executions. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics Con cites one case of a conviction that was overturned under scrutiny and no recent cases of false executions. Better forensics does not reduce the number of murderers caught and subject to execution. I eliminates false convictions, but DNA provides solid evidence to convict many others who would have gone free in past times. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Con claims that automobiles provide a benefit in return for the 30,000 innocent lives lost, but he fails to see a benefit to executions. A primary benefit is that justice is done, but it also saves the lives of those the convicted would subsequently kill, it deters murder particularly by the incarcerated, it saves substantial amounts of money on holding murderers for life, and plea bargains save money, solve cases, and provide closure to victims families. 5+. Justice deters crime Con argues that it is Japanese culture that produces their low crime rate, not their use of the death penalty. But what is it about the culture that lowers crime rates? I don't see what racial minorities have to do with it. It isn't the death penalty by itself, but rather that the society as a whole cares a great deal about providing justice, and justice in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Con points out that foreigners in Japan commit more crimes. Indeed, foreigners are unlikely to come from a culture so concerned with administering true justice, so they are more likely believe they can get away with commiting a serious crime. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining Con argues plea bargaining can also occur under a life sentence. Right, "Plead guilty and we will give you a Kindle in your life sentence without parole. Otherwise go to trial and risk losing the Kindle." The prospect of death is more compelling. The leverage is so great that it alone is reason enough for having a death penalty. It works even if the death penalty is rarely carried out, because the downside to the felon is so great. |
31 | a9c90ce7-2019-04-18T16:49:17Z-00002-000 | Is obesity a disease? | During "Out-of-Body" Experiences, People's Consciousness Don't Leaves Their Bodies Pro: "No semantics are allowed...What is wrong with the definition of consciousness" My rephrasing of the definition was to reject any argument of yours along the lines of "Since the consciousness is defined as located in the head, I am right by default." If no semantic arguments are used, I have no problem with the definition. To clarify, this debate is about true OBEs, not debunked ones. As Con I am arguing that during TRUE out of body experiences, people's consciousnesses do in fact leave their bodies. Pro's Points: A1-1: Pro states that in many cases, people reporting OBEs are unable to prove that the event occurred. Pro is correct; OBEs are often faked. To quote Pro's own statement, "The results turn out to be ALMOST always inaccurate." In this debate, however, Pro should not win by stating that the results are ALMOST always inaccurate. Just because most people don't experience true OBEs doesn't mean that no one has. A1-2: Pro argues that since experiments are unrepeatable, they are invalid. See sources (2)-(5). A2-1: Pro gives alternatives to OBEs including lucid dreaming, oxygen deprivation, and hallucinations. In his lucid dreaming example, he gives an R-Squared value of 0.2 (1). That value is extremely low and has zero statistical significance, rendering that connection irrelevant. However, Pro's alternatives are irrelevant, since they are all reasonable. Just because there are alternatives to OBEs does't mean that OBEs don't exist. A3-1: Consciousness is intangible. A3-2: Pro: "Nothing mental happens without something physical happens." Explain why this is important. Consciousness cannot exist without the brain, but it can exist outside the brain. This will be explained in my arguments. A3-3: Here Pro misinterprets Occam's Razor(6). He first states that an OBE doesn't require 2 bodies, and then states that since 1 body is less than two, 2 bodies is an unnecessary assumption. Pro, please inform me if you meant something else, but this is my best interpretation of your language. As Con, I will give a few examples of scientific OBEs. I'd like to emphasize that none of Pro's sources come from after 2005, so they may be outdated with regard to more modern OBEs. Pro's Definition of Consciousness: The state of mind that is aware of the experience of the self and the environment. An article from 2007 is titled "First Out-Of-Body Experience Induced In Laboratory Setting (3)." In the repeatable scientific experiment, patients recorded psychological, visual, and physiological responses to stimuli during the testing. One test included allowing the subjects to view and feel themselves being touched from a few meters behind their bodies. Another allowed subjects to view their illusionary second self being threatened, causing their brains to trigger a chemical reaction which made their body perspire, even though there was no danger. Only the illusory body was threatened. Pro's previously quoted definition of consciousness implies that the mind must be aware of itself. I ask, if the mind is observing its former body from an outside position, and the mind is experiencing not its former body, but another, then is the mind truly in its original self? No. Therefore in this scientific OBE, the consciousness really was out of its body, according to Pro's definition. This experiment was repeated in a 2008 Swedish study which made participants feel as if they were being cut with a knife even though the blade was slicing a dummy (who's eyes they were seeing through). Video (4), Article (5). One's consciousness is located in what one experiences totally. If someone drives a remote control car by pushing a lever on a controller, their consciousness isn't in that car. However, if someone controls an avatar not with a controller, but with their mind, then their consciousness is located in that avatar. Lift your right hand. You can, because your consciousness is located within your body. Imagine if you thought about lifting your right hand, and instead of you doing so, the right hand of a robot over 1000 miles away lifted its hand. A robot has already been created and controlled, using only the power of the mind, from 1250 miles away (2). The student stated, "I really felt like I was there, moving around. One of the researchers picked the robot up"and I was like, 'Oi, put me down!'" Pro presented alternatives to OBEs. He argued that true OBEs are unproven. He stated that there is no scientific evidence that's valid, that experiments supporting OBEs are unrepeatable. I ignored historical OBEs because they lack enough documentation to convince Pro that John Doe experienced an OBE in 1643 after ingesting magic mushrooms. However, modern evidence proves OBEs true. Pro's arguments may have been relevant before our modern era, but now it is proven that OBEs are not only likely, they have happened from both sides. Humans have experienced from a dummy's perspective, and robots have experienced from a human's perspective. |
7 | 19e92b11-2019-04-18T16:17:10Z-00004-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School All definitions will be used in context of the resolution. Standard conduct applies, including no trolling. "School" in context of the debate resolution means K-12th grade in standard education. |
19 | c27d9933-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00001-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | Should gay marriage be legal So you are saying two people can't be happy because of your religion? what about theirs? |
6 | 561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00002-000 | Is a college education worth it? | College is worth it Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com... |
24 | da2ddeb5-2019-04-18T18:29:10Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Progressive Income Tax This debate is on the progressive tax on individual citizens. I am Pro. The rich should pay more of their share of income than the middle class and poor. You can make moral, economic, or other arguments. In this debate, I will focus on Pro - Progressive Income Tax that is fair and has no loopholes.Plus, do not introduce any new arguments in the third round. First round is acceptance. In my plan, the system would look like this:Income Tax .................... Applied To Rate 10%-------------------------Up to $15,00020%-------------------------Up to $70,00025%-------------------------Up to $250,00035%-------------------------Up to $1,000,00040%-------------------------Up to $1,000,000,00045%-------------------------$1,000,000,000+ The need for this plan is to get an idea of what the progressive tax rates should be instead of just thrown out there with no justification in this debate. Plus, in this progressive tax many deductions are cut or eliminated, that is why many people have lower rates in my plan instead.Good luck |
17 | 80b86eb6-2019-04-18T17:55:09Z-00007-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | This house would legalize the use of marijuana INTRODUCTION In this debate, I firmly stand for legalization of cannabis. As a Pro, I will carry the burden of proof to show why legalization of marijuana is justifiable and will offer few benefits that follow. I will answer some questions regarding the regulation of marijuana that my opponent made. The term "legalization" in this debate would be appropriate to define as "to legalize but regulate in the similar manner with alcohol and tobacco", meaning no driving under influence, smoking in specific zones, taxation, ban for underage etc. For the sake of keeping this debate simple, it would be appropriate to only debate for marijuana for smoking. But if my opponent has objection, I expect a justification. ARGUMENT 1: Irony of the ban Many sources point (including studies and statistics) that marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco which are legal substances being widely used. Research by British Medical Association showed that nicotine is more addictive. More deaths are caused by alcohol and tobacco. Nevertheless, marijuana that causes less harm is forbidden. By harm, there are two types: harm to user and harm to others. I will split this argument into two sub-points and explain how marijuana is not so harmful to user and others. Sub-Point 1: Harms to users It is beyond doubt that overuse of marijuana, just like any other things can result in undesirable result. However, reasonable dose of marijuana do not cause so much of addiction [1], increased risk of cancer [2] and long-term cognitive impairment [3, 4]. It is undeniable that marijuana is completely harmless. So by saying marijuana is "not so harmful" I am not arguing marijuana is harm-free but I mean that the harm level of marijuana is not bad enough for it to be banned. In England and Wales in the year of 2006, cannabis caused 17 deaths when alcohol and tobacco each caused 6,627 and 86,500. Aspirin which is a completely legal headache medicine caused 22 deaths. The fact that marijuana usage is lower than alcohol and tobacco usage does partially contribute in such a low rate of marijuana death. However, taking the fact that 7 million people in UK are estimated to smoke marijuana, marijuana's danger is significantly lower than alcohol and tobacco. Sub-Point 2: Harms to others Before anything, I would like everyone to take a look at this grpah from Lancet. <http://www.economist.com...; From the graph already, we can see that cannabis has such a low rate of harm on others. Even considering the fact that cannabis figure can be shaken due to its illegality, the figures are still very overwhelming, along with other figures I have given previously. Again, 22 deaths were caused due to aspirin, which is a perfectly legal headache pill when 17 died from marijuana in the UK and Wales. The major way that a substance can harm others is through driving under influence. However, marijuana does not impair driving ability but in some cases make drivers more cautious since marijuana causes nerve to be more sensitive [5]. But as stated in the introduction, driving under influence of marijuana will be restricted just like driving intoxicated is illegal. Accidents caused due to marijuana-influenced driving are not a massive problem currently as well. If my opponent wants to argue on this point, he has to show what makes marijuana's danger a bigger problem than current problems that legal drugs cause. ARGUMENT 2: Benefits of legalization There are three main benefits of legalizing marijuana: economic, individual and social. Sub-Point 1: Economic Due to sizable market of marijuana, legalization of marijuana in Washington State is already expected to generate enormous amount of tax revenue. Economists predict if marijuana is taxed similarly to tobacco and alcohol, the US government can have about $6.2 billion of tax revenue each year [6]. Budget used on War on Drugs can be reduced significantly as well. In the year of 2010, The US federal government spent over $15 billion dealing War on Drugs. That is about $500 a second. The fact that out of all drug arrests in the US, marijuana arrests comprise 52% should be considered [7]. This means when marijuana becomes legal, the budget dealing illegal drugs can be decreased to about half and be concentrated on the rest half of arrests. Sub-Point 2: Individual About 7 million people in the UK are estimated to smoke marijuana when 23% of Canadian population admits having smoked marijuana. In the year of 2007, it has been surveyed that about 100 million US citizen have used marijuana. Viewing from the fact that this figure is around 5~6 years old, there is a good reason to assume that the number is higher currently. When marijuana is such a widely used and loved substance for recreational purpose, people should benefit themselves with legalized marijuana without fearing arrest. Just like cigarette and alcohol are also unhealthy substances but people have the freedom to opt to take these substances for recreational purpose, marijuana that is less harmful should be legalized. Apart from this, by legalizing something that is ironic to be illegal in the first place, we can save about 750,000 individuals being arrested each year in the US just for marijuana possession [7]. Sub-Point 3: Social 10,000 lives are killed in the US each year due to territory feud between drug dealers. Gang organizations including Mexican Cartels fight over their business territory in the US soil. Among 10,000 lives, the vast majority is innocent citizen caught in a cross-fire between these aggressive "warfare" of gangs [8]. When marijuana, which is the most widely used drug, becomes legal, better marijuana will be available for sale legally in a cheaper price which will likely to bankrupt many crime organizations and the residual criminal groups could be handled more efficiently and effectively since legalization of marijuana will undermine their business greatly. As I have mentioned previously, around half of labor force on War on Drugs is used on marijuana. As soon as marijuana becomes legal, the labor force can be concentrated into capturing minority of gang groups that survived bankruptcy but is already debilitated economically. When legalization of marijuana can solve so many problems, bring benefits to the society and the individuals but is not as nearly as harmful as alcohol and tobacco, legalization must happen. REFERENCES [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...; [2] Tan WC, Lo C, Jong A, et al.; for the Vancouver Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) Research Group. Marijuana and chronic obstructive lung disease: a population-based study. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2009;180:814–20. [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] Block, R.I. et al., "Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43: 907-917. [5] Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box". New York. (1995):36. [6] http://economics.about.com... [7] http://norml.org... [8] http://www.independent.co.uk... |
14 | 4f35caec-2019-04-18T16:50:20Z-00002-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Child birth should be considered immoral 1. "Life is the one game where you get to choose your objective. You can't narrow these objectives down to comfort and discomfort either." At their core, objectives are comforts and discomforts. You can put pretty colours and flowers all over them, but to get gold at the Olympics, after wanting it, is to fill a hole of great discomfort. "Thrill seekers aren't after comfort. They are after an adrenaline rush, which does not fit the definition of comfort." C'mon man, you know what I mean by comfort; don't play word games with me. Thrill seekers aren't after literal comfort, but that wasn't in the sense I argued for. The thrill seeker once experienced the adrenaline rush, and now wants it again, but doesn't have it at the moment. THAT is the discomfort. "Doctors are not after comfort either they know how tough their chosen path will … Ussually having something to do with helping others [2]." They are after comfort after they place the massive burden upon themselves: to become a doctor. Again, you're not arguing comfort and discomfort in the sense that I am; you're just playing word games. 2. "Unless you are capable of killing all people in one smooth stroke, then many will suffer until they pass on." I'm not arguing to kill everyone once people are born; I'm arguing that it's immoral for people to breed. "If people didn't exist already then it would be wrong for any sentient being to be allowed to exist to start with. Given how people exist your argument falls apart." Are you saying that allowing people to exist is immoral? Again, I am not arguing that we should kill them once they are born. "Generally a birth in the family is a joyous event. It makes people happy and therefore less uncomfortable." Freudian slip?-: "less uncomfortable". It is not that the life is now overall comfortable, rather less uncomfortable since a discomfort has been negated. "It has also been shown that as society becomes more technoligically advanced and interconnected , that life becomes less of a zero sum game[3]" This is absolute nonsense. The zero-sum game results from our psychology, NOT technological advancements. Read my initial argument again, please, because you don't understand it. 3. "Giving birth to someone is a gift you give ... If that person decides that they don't appreciate the gift they can always decide to end it, and all the suffering associated with it." But he/she can't end it until after he/she has lived in overall discomfort, which is almost assured considering the negative-sum game. Again, to impose that upon someone is immoral. "However you have no right to decide for someone if they are born." Yes, I do not have that right, and nor am I arguing for it. But this is only ONCE they are born, which shouldn't be happening in the first place. 1. "there are people who can be considered masochists and others active in the BDSM scene…" And again, you talk about discomfort in a different sense to which I am talking. Again, for goodness knows how many times, they are discomfortable in the sense that they are not being whipped or tortured (considering that they want that). This kind of semantics arguing is disrespectful, and should not be done within a debate. 2. "Pro argues starving is uncomfortable. There is no reason the signals that go to your brain to inform you that it's time to eat, have to be uncomfortable. These signals are in place to help you avoid discomfort." What an incredibly stupid argument. Try not eating for 60 hours, to the point where you are actually starving, and then try telling me that starving isn't uncomfortable (and I can use uncomfortable in both senses here, so you can't say that you don't understand). 3. "Pro argues that to feel pride in your kid they must have overcome something, that you were hoping they overcome to begin with. This is absurd. Some people feel pride for their kid for absolutely no reason." Well, I'll beg to differ, but this point does seem moot. Permanent state of discomfort 1. " A woman's nails need to be coloured" " It is only through the combination of a sexual drive and vanity that 'this broken chair' seems to need fixing." "Sexual arousal is not uncomfortable." But having a sexual drive is, and that's what I said: "sexual drive". Sexual arousal =/= sexual drive. "Vanity is not uncomfortable in an of itself…" Again, semantics; this isn't in the sense that I was arguing. 2 "Enough is different for different people. You can be content… It's also possible to lose all ten million and still be content." I used money just to propose something of value. Clearly, if you don't value the money, you are going to be content with losing it. You may also become content with losing it if you value it, but only after the initial heart-ache. The reason for pain and pleasure. 1. "Life is not about seeking comfort or avoiding discomfort…" Sure, the fundamental, biological core of life is not about comforts and discomforts, but these two make for my moral argument, which is what we are debating here. Benatar's asymmetry 1. "Not really pain is a signal that aids in man's primary purpose of existence. Without pain survival would be very unlikely." You missed his point. Would there be anyone in the world, that would sit in agonising pain for the rest of his/her life, and continue to say, "this is good"? Or how about getting your face smashed in, and your pain receptors screaming at you? Yeah, that's really helpful, even "good" as you like to argue. Once again, you continue to dance around with your intellectually dishonest answers that surmount to dirty semantics games. 2. "Yes and no pleasure Seaking can lead to drug overdoses, distract you from important tasks and make you more unlikely to notice underlying problems creeping up." Pleasure is the reason you're doing these "important tasks" in the first place. Besides, it's not "pleasure Seaking", it's simply pleasure. "Value can't be assigned to non existent pleasure but it can be assigned to non existent pain." The value assigned to non-existent pleasure is neither good nor bad. We're not mourning the choice of trillions of instances where people choose not to have a baby because no-one is being deprived of it. Conversely, it is good that no-one is suffering as it is bad to suffer. Summary "She never explains what the objective of this game is.One is left to derive from the arguments supporting this statement, that the objective is to obtain more comfort then discomfort in life. Why is this life's objective? Why should everyone share this objective if they choose not to?" Because discomfort is, at the very least in an inter-subjective sense, bad. You talk about things with the word "objective," which implies that you know the meaning to life (as if you have even proven that there is one first. You haven't, all you have done is argue what is there biologically, which is an appeal to nature). "She supports this premise with only anecdotal evidence." No, I argued a moral framework and gave examples to demonstrate the framework. "Another problem is Pro's redefinition of the words comfort and discomfort. Which simply mean ease and unease[6][1]. Pro's uses the words in whatever way is useful to her argument, but not in a way that the words are meant to be used. At one point even calling sexual arousal uncomfortable." This is the problem with most of your argument: you want to play stupid semantic games. I have explained the sense in which I have used the words and it is consistent with their definitions. Even if those words did not mean the things I suggested they did, you can still argue against the meaning I have used, but you would rather play your word games and waste everyone's time. Also, none of my analogies have been addressed, and thus they stand uncontested. |
21 | 842a72e0-2019-04-18T16:56:47Z-00004-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate Shift Pros CasePoint A: Climate shift is realSub point 1: Scientific consensus"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U. S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. " Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by HumanitySub point 1: Scientific Consensus"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. '"(3)"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible. "(5)"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. "(2)"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. "(2)"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. "(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). "(2)"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. "(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. " (2)"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either. " (2)"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions. "(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources1. . http://www.sciencemag.org......2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com......3. . http://www.nrdc.org......4. . http://www.mfpp.org......5. . http://www.edf.org......6. . http://climate.nasa.gov......7. . http://climate.nasa.gov......8. . http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov......9. . http://www.usatoday.com......10. . http://worldnews.nbcnews.com......11. . http://climate.nasa.gov...... |
14 | fbf5301a-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00004-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | Homosexuality is psychological and not biological. Again, thanks for your contribution. In the interests of clarity and ease, both for myself and the readers, perhaps when you make an affirmative claim you might wish to quote what you feel is the key portion from a website or study, rather than merely several links to various. We only have 3 days to formulate something close to digestible replies, and the readers only a relatively short time to digest information therein. It would therefore be of great use to everyone if you could perhaps lift what sections you deem absolutely conclusive from your sources and quote them inside the main body of your text. You may also then provide links as well of course. We will commonly hear homosexuals talk about being 'born gay'. Because this is repeated and unchallenged in the media, general society takes on the idea as scientific fact - when it's anything but so. I would even go as far as to say that people who believe others are 'born gay' are essentially like an informal faith based cult. A faith entirely lacking in rationality or empirical scientific evidence. It would be perfectly possible for geneticists to study a DNA sample from an African, Asian or European man and determine from that sample which was which. This is very easy for them to do for there are clear and self evident genetic markers and differences. They can go further still. They can break it down, so that your results might be that you are 90% European, 5% African and 5% Jewish. This is so easy and commonplace now that anyone can do it online and for a small fee. But can could scientists take the gene samples of babies and determine which were hetro and which would be homosexual? Could they do it with a large participation sample and repeat the results time and again as per the scientific process? No they cannot and they have not. The reason why they cannot and never will is that no one is born gay, and scientists would not be able to determine by a compare and contrast of samples from new born babies. It should be clear by now that whatever homosexuality is rooted in that thing is not biological or genetic. But since it obviously exists and a real thing we are left with the question - what is it mainly rooted in(or even exclusively so)? The answer is patently in the psychological. From an evolutionary perspective you might wonder why a male 'born gay' would also produce semen? Semen is for procreation and a man cannot impregnate another man. You'd have to wonder why the female 'born gay' would have eggs. A women cannot impregnate another women. This would further indicate to me that no baby is born 'genetically gay'. The parallels between many of those with the pathology of homosexuality can be juxtaposed with recognised psychological conditions and you will see some startling similarities. The much higher instances of drug use (self medicating even), the high risk taking behaviours, casual disregard for consequence, greater instances of self harm and suicidal ideation, sexual promiscuity but difficulty in sustaining relationships, commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others. There is a reason why there would be some many parallels - the psyche of homosexuality is in of itself a psychological state of mind, most likely born from one or more triggers in their key development years. In the video I provided in my OP a range of homosexuals were asked frankly about their first sexual encounter of any kind. Around 90% or more answered that there was either some molestation at the hands of another male or at the very least an early sexualisation owing to exposure to sex. This does not mean that being molested is the trigger in all. But I think it is fair to say that if a boy aged between 2-12 is molested(maybe repeatedly) by men, that the child is going to grow up with an altered and damaged sexual psyche. ** Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specialises in media stunts wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene ** Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that�s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things." Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexually and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined� how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow." "Examples of sexual flexibility� don�t square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination." ** Richard B. Gartner, PhD, Training and Supervising Analyst, Faculty and Founding Director of the Sexual Abuse Program at the William Alanson White Institute, wrote in his Jan. 30, 2011 article "Talking about Sexually Abused Boys, and the Men They Become," available at www.psychologytoday.com: "Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys - whether straight or gay - develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there's no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse." Helen W. Wilson, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and Cathy Spatz Widom, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at The City University of New York (CUNY), wrote the following information in their Jan. 7, 2009 article published by Archives of Sexual Behaviour, "Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up": "Findings from this investigation provide tentative support for a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and same sex sexual relationships, but this relationship appeared only for men. That is, men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were more likely than men in a control group to report same sex sexual partnerships... " David W. Purcell, JD, PhD, Deputy Director for Behavioural and Social Science, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, et al. State in their article "Childhood Sexual Abuse Experienced by Gay and Bisexual Men: Understanding the Disparities and Interventions to Help Eliminate Them," published in the 2008 book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States: "In sum, regardless of the rigor of the sample selection, when comparing MSM [men who have sex with men] samples to general male population samples, and when comparing MSM and heterosexual men within one sample, MSM consistently report more CSA [childhood sexual abuse] overall and more CSA with males than heterosexual men do; and no differences are observed for reported abuse by females� These studies bolster our conclusion that a disparity exists between gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men when it comes to CSA by males http://borngay.procon.org... |
38 | 9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00035-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Drugs are bad We believe that in order to win the debate any side should prove that drugs are harmful / not harmful and that the state could / could not restrict individual liberties. So our burden of proof is to prove that drugs are bad (otherwise, there would be no reason for banning them) and that the state is a legitimate actor to ban them (i.e. restrict personal freedom of choice). We will do this by two arguments and here comes the first one proving that drugs are bad in general. On the side of opposition we believe that drugs are inherently evil. They have tremendous negative consequences for the health of a person using them and for society, since a person could commit crazy actions under the influence of drugs. Moreover, part of taxes paid by residents of a country are spent on treating drug users from their addiction, which results in a loss for the welfare of the state. The argument is structured in a manner to point out harmful health effects from the usage of different drugs, and explain how work the mechanisms causing lose for society overall. 1. Negative effects on health. a. Heroin Among all drugs, heroin sometimes is encountered as the most evil. Scientific research shows that people using heroin suffer from serious health problems and have a higher mortality rate than others of the same age who do not use drugs. The increased number of injections plays as a catalyst in developing some infections like endocarditis, cellulitis and abscesses. It has a clear positive correlation with the usage of heroin, since this drug is usually consumed by injections [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. Also heroin causes serious mental disorders like anxiety and personality disorders. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] Drug addicts also have a higher rate of suicides, which is proven by some recent studies [[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/3/277]]. Some research suggests that heroin addicts are 14 times more likely to commit a suicide than their peers who do not use this drug [[http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/DI_ResearchProject/$file/Methadone+Project+sheet.pdf]]. The most popular way of committing the suicide is by deliberate drug overdose. We could propose a mechanism to describe this phenomena. A person, whose mental and physical health were undermined by heroin, who is completely desegregated from society and has no sufficient stimulus for living, under the influence of depression caused by the end of heroin "high" decides to commit a suicide. There are numerous examples of such people. There is also a high rate of non deliberate deaths from overdose among heroin users. Tolerance towards this drug develops very fast, which requires an addict to use the substance more frequently and at higher doses. About 10-20% of users develop such a significant dependence and tolerance that they have to use heroin every 3-4 hours [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. This makes overdose very likely to occur. Moreover, overdose could occur because of inability of the user to calculate the optimum dose for him while he is "high". We have shown at least some serious problems connected to heroin. We believe that there are much more, but we need to move on to our next points. b. Cocaine, crack cocaine. Cocaine also causes several harmful effects. It damages brain by taking control over the cells in the "pleasure center" of brain and thus causing high biological addiction towards the drug. It significantly increases blood pressure, heart rate. Could cause strokes, brain seizures, respiratory failure, heart attack, convulsions and death. It also diminishes the desire for sleep and food, thus leading to malnutrition, significant weight loss and the devastation of the user. It also has negative effects on liver, reproductive system, lungs, throat and basically every single organ of the user. Moreover, it causes several mental disorders like increased irritability and anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, depression, non-stop babbling, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, short tempers, bizarre, aggressiveness, violence, suicidal behavior, delusions, paranoia and hallucinations. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/news.php?include=133996]] We believe that all these symptoms are enough to regard cocaine as totally unacceptable. c. Marijuana. There are some people stating that marijuana in general is not harmful. May be it is the least harmful among all the drugs, but there is still evidence in favor of its harmfulness. The immediate effect from the usage of marijuana involves increased heartbeat, which leads to heart problems in the future. Intensive usage of marijuana makes a person dull, slow moving and inattentive. It harms memory, reduces concentration, swift reaction, coordination and alters the sense of time. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/marijuana-addiction.html]] Some studies showed that smoking marijuana is especially harmful for pregnant or breast feeding women, since it could affect their fetus. [[http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/cannabis-pregnancy-and-breast-feeding]] But the most crucial argument against even such "light" drug as marijuana is that the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs. It is hard to find a heroin addict who has never smoked weed in his life. Since under the plan all drugs will be legalized there will be no deterring effect to prevent people who started to use less harmful drugs from moving to more harmful ones. Under the status quo less harmful drugs such as marijuana are more available than those like heroin. It is much harder to buy heroin from drug dealer, because it involves more restrictions. This prevents people who tried marijuana from trying other, more harmful, drugs. If we legalize all drugs, this prevention will disappear. By the way the arguments of the government about no harm of marijuana fails here once again, since the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs, which under the plan will be legal. 2. Harms to society. a. Crazy behavior of drug addicts. There were many crimes committed under the influence of drugs, since the usage of drugs puts a person into "another reality", it makes it impossible for him to behave adequately in the real world. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states several facts supporting the positive correlation between the usage of drugs and committing crimes. In the US the drug test of arrested showed that from 43% in Anchorage to 79% in Philadelphia of male arrestees showed a positive result on the test of the usage of any drugs. [[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html]] After the plan is implemented and drugs become legal, the significant increase in the crime rates could follow. There are already some states putting restrictions on the sale of alcohol (like Sweden or Latvia), because they find it easier to restrict such substances rather than deal with the evil consequences. The only reason we can't put restrictions on all alcohol is because of traditions. Traditionally people got used to alcohol and tobacco so much that the ban of these substances will cause a huge response in public. Fortunately, there is no such traditional dependence on drugs, that's why it is great that we can ban them. There was an argument from the proposition that such laws allowing alcohol and restricting drugs are "unfair". We believe that there is no such thing as "fair" or "unfair" relating to drugs and alcohol, and we believe that we should try our best to protect our citizens. If we can't ban alcohol because of traditions, it doesn't mean that we should allow also drugs. We believe that we should protect people from as many harmful things as we can. b. Economic loss. The social costs of drug use are estimated at 0.2% of Gross National Product in the US. The costs to society of a person with opioid dependency are 45,000$ per year. This includes costs of him not working, but living on social benefits; costs of crimes he commits; and costs of medical treatment he needs when he is under the overdose. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] It is clear that economically it is much more beneficial to ban drugs and avoid this loss. |
13 | 3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | fossil fuel Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: •Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases •Easy to install •Virtually no energy costs once installed •The technology for solar power is constantly improving •Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: •No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions •Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land •The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options •Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective. |
18 | 7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00004-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | Should Churches Pay Taxes Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church. |
24 | 72004bc5-2019-04-18T18:16:07Z-00005-000 | Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs? | Flat Tax "the richer should be taxed more because they use more resources"OK, so my opponent has the decided to make the argument here, that is random, but OK. First my opponent needs to define what he sees as "rich". Is it the top 1%? Top 5%? Top 10%? What is the rich to him? For that matter, what is the poor? He has no sources to back him up. "the rich use more police, courts, transportation systems, national parks and resources, IRS workers, space flight use, represent more needing protected with the military, etc. "Uh. .. .. WTF? ! OK, look not trying to be rude but I have no idea what my opponent just said. There is no logic behind it. How do the rich, by my opponent's definition, "use up" more police. I think poor people cause more crime than rich people. Also, rich people never really join the police. In terms of transportation, the "rich" would probably take planes if by rich we mean in terms of money. The "poor" then would probably take more cars and walk on sidewalks or subways, thus using up more transportation. Rich people rarely join the army and being in the army should not be taxes because these men are fighting for our country and risking their lives. Your entire argument really makes no sense and while I am only addressing a few, I think the voters would agree. Right now I would like to take some to address the fact that my opponent did not follow the most simple rule that round 1 is for acceptance. I request the point of conduct. My opponent also sucks are grammar because she does not capitalize letters so I request the point of spelling and grammar. "the government often must redistribute to the poor just for the basics. food stamps, health, whatever. i'm sure we could squibble about what the poor should have access to, but by far most people agree they should have access to at least the basics,"Yet we still do not know who the poor is. However going back to money, my opponent seems to think that the wealth is fixed to the rich and that it is there responsibility to help the poor, but in a free market there is not fixed amount. A free market creates new wealth. He seems to think that natural law (whatever that is) allows a poor person to become rich and that man made law does not, but what is natural law? Onto my own arguments. A Flat Tax Creats Economic GrowthA flat tax lowers the current tax rates and allows people to save more and invest more allowing a boost in the economy. Even if it grows as low as 0.5%, the average family would have $5,000 that they would have under current tax laws. Instant Wealth CreationThere is a possibility that a flat tax could boost national wealth to $5 trillion. Part of this reason is because all income-producing assests would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate. SimplicityThe IRS, which manages our tax, itself costs a lot of money to run and is very complex in terms of tax returns. With a flat tax, taxes is simply put a postcard-sized form. This saves tens of billions of dollars. FairnessEveryone in this system is treated equally. It does not matter if you are a CEO of a big corporation or someone working at McDonald's, a flat tax is fair. Basically, the complex progressive tax that our country has right now taxes people based on income, but a flat tax does not and taxes everyone fairly. For example, no matter if you ma $100 or $1,000,000 if a law says you both pay 10%, you will give up 10% of your income. That is fair and equal. Ends CorruptionWhile this nation's progressive tax system allows for corruption, a flat tax eliminates all deductions, looholes, credits, and exemptions. Politicians would lose their power to use the tax code to pick winners and losers and because the flat is pro-growth, corporations would not waste their times hiring lobbyists for their own special interests from the government. Even if it does not get rid of all corruption, it gets rid of a large amount. . http://www.heritage.org... |
33 | 129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00003-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Vegetarianism is good for your health Sorry I thought "vegan" was short form of "vegetarian". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. "Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with." Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. "Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans." Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too. |
49 | fff4a982-2019-04-18T11:49:08Z-00002-000 | Should body cameras be mandatory for police? | Should voting be mandatory Voting should never be compulsory! Encouraged? Of course. Forced? Never! When a government forces its citizens to vote you see the first step towards autocratic rule, where a dictator becomes the only name on the ballot and every citizen in your utopia is forced to vote for him. It is through this method that rulers such as Kim Il Sung and his son have stayed in power. Instead of the populous being able to show that he is a sham governor they are forced to give his regime legitimacy. |
43 | b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00009-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts "Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled."[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. "D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test."[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test. |
15 | 908f4e4f-2019-04-18T18:40:43Z-00000-000 | Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? | animal testing Considering my opponent has left me with nothing to debate against, here is my final point. I have already explained that animal testing causes medical advances and breakthroughs, and I managed to find an example of quite a few of these breakthroughs and here are just some of them; . Monkey's and various other animals were used to help eradicate polio / create a vaccine against it - the vaccine was made available in 1955 after years of testing on animals, and by 1965 it had almost removed polio from the US. In fact the same vaccination 'formula' is still in use today. . Anaesthetic is definitely a 'comfort blanket' when having an operation...you wouldn't want to be awake and see your stomach being cut open would you? Well the testing carried out on rodents, rabbits , cats , dogs and monkey's helped aid the creation of harmless anaesthetics which we still use today! . In the 20th century, testing on animals has helped many medical advances, such as; Penicillin , Organ Transplants and the Whooping Cough vaccine. Source = http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, in regards to some people saying 'Unnecessary Cruelty'. Really? Why don't you buy make up e.g. lipstick before it has been tested on animals, put it on your lips and see what happens. Would you really take the risk.. even if it meant your lip swelling x 3 normal size. 95% of you wouldn't - this is why animals are also important in cosmetic testing. For safety precautions on humans. I really hope when you vote for this debate, you don't consider personal opinion alone. I am against animal testing if someone asked me 'for or against'. But I can still argue for both sides, like I have done in this debate. Good luck to my opponent. * In response to the list of products not tested on animals...do you really believe every company tells the truth? * |
17 | c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00005-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first. |
8 | 6702cbc6-2019-04-18T11:40:47Z-00000-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Sorry, I was extremely busy today and didn't have time to make an argument. Is it okay if I post one in the comments tomorrow morning? I have to go to bed an can't make an argument now either. I am so sorry for the inconvenience! |
31 | d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut |
42 | 7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00003-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey While fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain. |
22 | 36da2186-2019-04-18T14:57:30Z-00003-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Resolved: Palestine Should Become Independent From Israel Thank you for acceptingC1: Rightfully Palestinian landhttp://www.itisapartheid.org..."The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known by the Israelis predominantly as the War of Independence and War of Liberation and by Palestinians as the Catastrophe (Arabic: al Nakba), resulted in a land grab by Israel, which expropriated considerably more land than had been apportioned to it under the partition. While in 1945, 85% of arable land in Palestine had belonged to Arabs, by 1949, only 6% of the land was occupied by Arabs. Israelis used to claim that the Palestinians left their properties on their own accord, but historians now generally agree that the Palestinians were expelled.""Current estimates put the Palestinian refugee count at 6 million people. Some of these reside in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Since 1948, the World Community has recognized the Right of Return to Palestine under the U.N. Resolution 194.However, Israel has created its own laws concerning the Right of Return with convoluted residency laws, making it impossible to return to lands owned for hundreds of generations by indigenous Palestinians. One example is the prevention of Eastern Jerusalem residents to return to Jerusalem if out of the country for more than seven years-even if as a refugee due to deportation or land confiscation. "The Palestinians have been living on the land for thousands of years, and all of the sudden the Israelis kick them out. Now there are 6 million Palestinian refugees without a home.C2: Israel apartheidAccording to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid by the UN in 1973, apartheid is acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." By this definition, it is clear that apartheid and segregation are happening against Palestinians in Israel. http://www.itisapartheid.org..."Palestinians are under Military Law and face the constant threat of arrest and detention without charge and can be held indefinitely. They have no right to representation or trial. Israelis living in illegal settlements on Palestinian land have all the privileges of Israeli Civil Law. As citizens of Israel, they can vote, seek redress in court, and have freedom of speech and assembly. 2 Palestinian villages and towns face collective punishment in the form of bulldozing of family houses, extended 24 hour curfews, closures, military raids, violence and harassment. Israeli settlers face no such collective punishment. 3 Palestinian land ownership (agricultural and residential) is subject to military and economic confiscation. The purpose is to establish Jewish only settlements, take water resources and confine the Palestinian population into smaller and smaller cantons.Israelis face no land confiscation. 4 Over 17,000 Palestinian houses have been demolished, creating 100,000 of thousands homeless. Over a million Palestinian olive and fruit trees have been uprooted. A few Israeli outposts have been dismantled, but there has been no widespread destruction ofIsraeli homes and trees. 5 Palestinians are prohibited from using the extensive network of settler only highways that connect the settlements to Israel. 8 The Israeli military authority controls virtually all the water in the West Bank. 73% of West Bank water is piped back to Israel. Illegal Jewish settlers use 10% of West Bank water.Palestinians have access to only 17% of their own water and must buy it from Isrrael at 4 times the price Israelis pay. 9 The wall fragments Palestinian communities; it separates families from their land, their livelihood, health care and schools. The wall also divides communities and families from each other. The wall does not fragment Israeli settlements; it is built in such a way to as to annex them to Israel proper." This source CLEARLY states Israel oppression against the Palestinian people. Israel has demolished all their homes and takes away their basic needs, not being able to have access to their water or being held under military law.https://www.popularresistance.org...Some great pictures on this: http://www.seamac.org... "Four million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories lack the right to vote for the government that controls their lives through a military occupation. In addition to controlling the borders, air space, water, tax revenues, and other vital matters pertaining to the Occupied Territories, Israel alone issues the identity cards that determine the ability of Palestinians to work and their freedom of movement." "In 2008, the South African government commissioned a study by leading legal scholars and human rights experts to determine if Israel was practicing apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the parameters of international law. After a 15-month investigation, the study concluded that "Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid." "Contention 3: Benefits to Israelhttp://www.foreignaffairs.com..."But the potential benefits of supporting the resolution far outweigh the perils. If Israel manages to garner solid international support by backing the Palestinian UN resolution, it may induce the Palestinians to return to negotiations. This would improve Israel's international status, give it more diplomatic space to maneuver through the chaos in the Middle East, and allow it to shore up its security needs. Most important, the above proposal may be the only way to preserve the idea of achieving peace through bilateral negotiations. By reaching a compromise with the Palestinian leadership over the UN resolution, Israel can halt the dangerous precedent of unilateral action for conflict resolution and instead preserve the principle of achieving a two-state solution through direct talks, a notion critical to Israel's future. Such a concerted move would prevent a violent confrontation, give the Palestinians the dignity they seek, allow the parties to relaunch negotiations, and win Israel international favor while preserving its security needs. Now is the time not for prudence but for audacity."If Israel allowed Palestine to become COMPLETELY independent (they are not now as Israel still controls everything unfairly), there would be less violence overall in the Middle East as less terrorists would target Israel.Overall, Palestine deserves independence. Thank you. |
5 | 3563205b-2019-04-18T16:23:24Z-00003-000 | Should social security be privatized? | Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today If the case was that it could be stopped, than why is it not right now? I cannot see anyone dumb enough to know how to use a computer but not know how to turn off security settings. Cyber bullying is a big factor in all of this. More info on this can be found below: http://mediasmarts.ca... Teens are easily influenced by media today and it has a big impact on the rest of their lives. Teens also may be addicted to the internet. This is serious such as alcohol addiction or drug addiction. More info on this can be found below: http://www.helpguide.org... |
5 | 2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00011-000 | Should social security be privatized? | The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Social Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under.[1] As a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent.[2] Social Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the "baby boomer" generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes.[3] In many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: "Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme's earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme."[4] Faced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else's.[5] [1] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. "The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System." CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [3] San Diego Union Tribune. "Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html [4] Cato Institute. "Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?". Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html; [5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf |
28 | 7c83e847-2019-04-18T16:13:26Z-00002-000 | Should prostitution be legal? | Prostitution should not be legalized HUMAN TRAFFICKING ARE REAL ISSUES Prostitution as work doesn"t dignify women or human , its not a professionalism or dignify work. Legalized prostitution encouraging the society to create a legitimate sex entrepreneurs or third party businessmen in sex industry. its trading human for profit, No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. Prostitution industries are one of the root causes of human trafficking > http://en.wikipedia.org... the International Organization of Migration (IOM) has estimated that 500,000 women and children are trafficked in Europe annually . In contrast, it has been estimated that 45,000-50,000 women and children are trafficked annually into the United States One goals of legalized prostitution was to move prostituted women indoors into brothels and clubs where they would be allegedly less vulnerable than in street prostitution. However, many women are in street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by pimps (transformed in legalized systems into sex businessmen). Other women do not want to register or submit to health checks, as required by law in some countries where prostitution is legalized. legalized will create a society view of prostitution is acceptable, it also encourages men to buy women for sex . men who would not formerly consider buying a woman in prostitution think, "Well, if it"s legal, if it"s decriminalized, now it must be O.K." Most women in prostitution did not make a rational choice to enter prostitution from among a range of other options. They did not sit down one day and decide that they wanted to be prostitutes. They did not have other real options such as medicine, law, nursing or politics. Instead, their "options" were more in the realm of how to feed themselves and their children. Such choices are better termed survival strategies. agree with me not to Legalizing Prostitution , when its legalized it will encourage and support unfaithful man , it will teach our future generation the wrong value in life. it will encourage businessmen in sex industry, human trafficking. criminal group will start to operate in city . will any decent businessman run a sex industry? most women in prostitution because of survival strategies. |
21 | e0235ff5-2019-04-18T15:17:00Z-00000-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | who can make the better story based off of a videogame Michael is 25 years old, he has brown hair, blue eyes, and is 6ft1. He is about to have his life change drastically. His friends are Gage, Conner, Marcus, and his brother Clayton. It was just a normal day in Denver, he was driving his car full of his friends to work when he heard this blood curdling scream coming from his friend Clayton he looked he saw a Ford truck come crashing into there car and hitting the car so hard that it flipped the car 15 times before it came crashing into a building and knocking Michael out cold. When he woke up he heard moaning but thought it was his friend but he looked and they were still knocked out. He checked they're pulse and he was glad to find that they were alive and that no bones were broken. He got out of the car and looked around there was no people around but he still heard the moaning. He is shocked to find that the streets are empty and that it was getting dark so he went back into the car and moved his friends out of the car. He got Clayton out of the car last because he was in the side of the car that was against the wall in the back seat. When he got Clayton to a safe distance the cars gas set fire and the car was set a blaze. His friends awoke to the car exploding and Michael desisted to leave and to find shelter in one of the building he didn't know why he did but he was glad that he did it. He saw a rush of people run at the car and then he saw a person run in fear as soon as he saw the others the people ran after the guy and killed him as they ran past Michael saw that most of them were bloody. He saw on the wall aim for the head written in blood. He also saw a body on the ground and a shotgun in his left hand. Michael goes over the body and sees that there is a bite mark and his neck and then he pies up the gun and sees that it is 1 shell in the chamber. Then the guy gets up and starts running at Clayton. Clayton pushed the man and the man falls and then got up. Then the guy ran for Michael and Michael notices that the man is slightly pale and has a bite on his leg it looks infected. He drops the gun and it fires and the mans foot is gone but the man keeps coming and then Michael know that it would bring any living thing to the ground and he thinks that is might be a zombie. So he picks up the gun and bashes the guy to the ground then starts to beat him in the chest with the gun and he brakes through the chest of the guy and then he thinks that the guy is dead so he gets up and then the guy jumps up and what is left of the guys guts spills out on the floor. The guy is still coming at him so he hits the guy on the ground and starts to bash the zombie's limbs of and succeeds then he bashes the guys head into the ground. Then he checked the guy's body for shotgun shells he found 5 shells in the guys pocket. He knows that it will not be enough so he asks Marcus to go up stairs and look for shotgun shells and he goes up stairs with him he knows that they all need to stick together but he leaves Gage, Conner, Clayton down stairs they need to stay and hide until they come back down. Michael and Marcus go up stairs and split up. Michael finds 30 shells and 50 9mm pistol bullets and can't find the pistol. Marcus finds a 9mm pistol but no ammo for it and 30shells. They both here something coming up the stairs so they run toward each other and Michael sees that Marcus has a 9mm pistol in his hand and asks for it. Marcus gives the gun to him and then asks for the shotgun. Michael gives him the shotgun and the ammo for it. They did it in a matter of seconds and the both ran for the stairs and had weapons drawn. They then saw that it was just Clayton who had found some guns and was coming to get them. They go down stairs and see that there are two gun cases one is full of ammo and the other has, an m16, an m1 grand, a m4, a hunting rifle, and a 5 M-9-11 military issue pistols. That's when they heard it the crying the instant crying I sounded like a little girl when they saw it they froze. It had long claws and it had red eyes that made chills run up their spines. The monster was a grown woman she looked like she needed help but when they saw a man run up to her and try to talk to her she snapped and ripped him into pieces then she just kept walking with his head still in her hand they waited tell she passed and then ran across the street to see a man being strangled by what looked like a tongue so they shot the thing and it let go and the man was out of breath. He thanked them and ran the way they had come from and right into the woman and got killed and then the thing saw them and started running toward them and they shoot at it and kill it but they know that the zombies were changing into special zombies. They then heard a radio and they investigated it and found out that it was a two way receiver they called the man on the radio and said that they where ready to be air lifted out of New York City. Man said that he would be there in 30 min. they put down the radio and that's when the trouble really started for them. This guy with a hoodie came and jumped on gage and killed him then they started shooting at it. They killed it but they lost gage and it was bloody all around them. By the time the chopper arrived Conner was dead and the others where badly bleeding the guys on the helicopter got them and took them to a military base and stayed there until the base got over run and now myself and my brother Clayton are what is left of the world at the moment we don't know who else is out there but if you are hearing this message come to the fort in Albany and come here if you want to live.Marcus signing out. |
27 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am bette |
31 | b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00004-000 | Is obesity a disease? | Obesity is a disease. Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying. |
22 | 402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00046-000 | Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? | Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution Mohammed Khaku. "The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: "The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote." |
42 | 1051f52a-2019-04-18T17:36:53Z-00004-000 | Should fighting be allowed in hockey? | Dog Fights Dog fights cause the harm of dogs. This much I cannot refute. However, does this equate to being animal abuse? I do not think so. For example, we injure dogs when we perform surgery. This is intentional harm of dogs, and I doubt you would classify veterinary surgery as animal abuse. My opponent argues that people withhold food from these dogs, injure them, and taunt them before a fight, in order to increase their performance. Nor is this animal abuse. We withhold food from our children when we think they are eating more than is beneficial for their purpose--that is, to perform well in life, in school, and athletically. A coach may impose dietary restrictions on a fighter, so that he becomes lean and muscular. I have already addressed injury, but I will add that injury can at times serve as a negative reinforcement as a means of spurring on their purpose--that is, the fights. Taunting dogs is no more immoral than taunting a cow. It does not have the cognitive ability to understand what taunting is. If it does, then it is no different than taunting any other sports performer.My opponent argues that fighting can go on so long that a dog may die. This is unfortunate, however it is not against nature. Animals die every day. These dogs are feral creatures, they are not suitably domesticated. You don't say that two wolves killing each other is wrong or animal abuse. It isn't animal abuse even if it is filmed as entertainment. Further, I would argue that man, as a sentient being, has dominion over all of the dumb animals of the earth, dogs included. Treating the dogs as the wild animals that they are is not abuse. And it is certainly not wrong to utilize an animal that is beneath man for man's entertainment.These animals ARE bred to fight like this. It is in their nature. The fact that humans derive pleasure from the observation of the natural course of events when two alpha dogs encounter one another is incidental. It is not wrong.Beyond ALL of that, however, these attributes you mention are not INTRINSICALLY part of dog fighting, so even if you were to successfully argue that those practices are wrong, all you have done is prove that CERTAIN METHODS of dogfighting are wrong, not the act of dogfighting itself. |
45 | 19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00005-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | In the US, pennies should be abolished. As part of its new budget, Canada will get rid of its penny, saving taxpayers more than C$11 million, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since production in 1908, the bank has produced more than 35 billion pennies, but circulation will end sometime in 2012. As part of cost cutting measures, Canada will save at least C$150 million in production and handling costs once the penny is completely abolished. It costs the Canadian government C1.6 cents to mint a penny, a coin made from copper-plated zinc and copper-plated steel. However, it won't only be the government that saves money. Banks Pay Saving pennies in a piggy bank may be fun for children, but for banks, the transportation, handling and storage of coins costs about C$20 million each year according to Canadian officials, a cost that has to be passed on to customers in the form of fees. Eliminating the penny saves a portion of the costs associated with processing coins. More Efficient Some argue that cash registers will have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the switch, but since the penny will remain in circulation until most pennies are out of circulation and taxes will continue to be calculated to the penny, cash registers and other business machines will operate as they always have. Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that businesses welcome the change, since fewer coins will eventually make their business more efficient. Other Countries Have Done It Canada is one of many countries that have ended the minting of their lowest-value coins. In 1992, Australia eliminated their one- and two-cent coins from circulation. In January 2008, Israel eliminated their five agorot coin. These countries join at least 15 other countries including Great Britain, The Philippines, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore and Mexico that have all eliminated at least one of their coins to lower government costs. When Will the United States Do It? The most notable hold out is the United States. In 2006, The Legal Tender Modernization Act was introduced by Representative Jim Kolbe. The bill aimed to require that all transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents but this legislation failed to pass Congress leaving the U.S. with the same problem as Canada. Producing the penny in the U.S. costs a lot more than in Canada, according to CNN. To produce a U.S. penny, the U.S. Mint pays 2.4 cents per penny, and that's up from 1.5 cents in 2006. That, along with the production of the nickel, costs the U.S. government more than $100 billion each year, and if it can't be retired, President Obama wants the cost reduced. That, according to officials, is difficult, because the administrative costs of producing a penny account for nearly half a cent, leaving very little room to cover the cost of raw materials.[1] [1]http://www.investopedia.com... My old arguments. Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1. |
1 | d23aca82-2019-04-18T16:11:12Z-00004-000 | Should teachers get tenure? | Teachers should have guns if that happens then i think security guards should have a gun. a school is a place where we should feel safe. what if a fight breaks out in class and a student went for the gun. or the teachers getting picked on (does happen) and the teacher uses it on a student. thered also be concerned parents. |
2 | 799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000 | Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe? | unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31; |
3 | a99f67b1-2019-04-19T12:45:16Z-00052-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Free Market Genial trade relations should continue even if we left the EU, however, "if there were genuine concern about the EU pursuing discriminatory trade policies against the UK, then the UK could also join NAFTA to create countervailing power in the event of traded disputes. NAFTA allows each member to pursue its own trade agenda, provided it allows other NAFTA members free access in agreed trade areas. It would therefore be entirely consistent with the UK's free trade policy."[[Minford, Mahambare and Nowell 2006]] |
50 | 8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000 | Should everyone get a universal basic income? | Everyone should be vegetarian. I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move? |
14 | fba9d594-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00003-000 | Is sexual orientation determined at birth? | People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances. The claim is that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and if it is a sexual orientation then its not treatable. The claim assumes that sexual orientation is a way of life not a disorder. The claim goes further by stating Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Sexual orientation is a person"s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted to; it is the state of being a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This claim deviates from the issue. The problem with pedophilia is not that the person is sexually attracted to men or women, it"s that the person is sexually attracted to boys and/or girls. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, meaning it is not the attraction to a male or female, it is a disorder of sexual preference. It is a disorder of sexual preference because pedophilic behavior causes harm, unlike sexual orientation. Pedophilia may put children at risk because they are not in the age of corresponding to the sexual attraction of pedophiliacs. It is why pedophiliac behavior should be prevented. Treatment can help prevent it. |
7 | cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights. |
21 | ff5b0936-2019-04-18T12:09:41Z-00000-000 | Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? | Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity I believe that climate change is serious and urgent problem facing us today. In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to climate change facing the people of the world. I look forward to having a good debate and learning a lot from it. |
33 | 8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000 | Should people become vegetarian? | Everyone should be vegetarian. I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move? |
17 | f703aaba-2019-04-18T13:53:50Z-00009-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use I am for the legalization of recreational & medical marijuana ONLY under strict & enforced regulations and laws. I am looking for an opponent that can lay an opposite view based on science & statistics, though I understand some may use religious views and I am happy to debate those as well. I will lay out some ideas of laws/policies pertaining to regulating, taxing, and criminal/civil consequences of violations of both recreational & medical marijuana. I will cite sources in my comments. I will first address legal age & recreational use. 1) The legal minimum age for recreational marijuana set at 25 ; there is no minimum age for medical marijuana as prescribed and supervised by a licensed and registered medical doctor after recommendations from 3 separate licensed and registered doctors. Why ? The human brain has been scientifically proven using brain scans that it has not fully formed until between the age of 20-25. Specifically, the prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. It's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal. It also helps you understand the future consequences of present and past actions. Another part of the brain that is still forming is the brain's reward system that becomes highly active right around the time of puberty & then gradually levels out about it reaches around age 25. That makes adolescents/teens more inclined to engage in uncertain situations & actions in order to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations/actions, whether pleasurable, monetary, or socially. As that MEDICAL marijuana use is prescribed by a licensed and registered medical doctor under recommendation from 3 other doctors & own medical knowledge after extensive testing and evaluation of the patient in question, the ramifications & possible side effects of marijuana use by a person under the age of 25 has been evaluated by knowledgeable ADULTS & judged that the benefits to the patients health & general wellbeing out ways the cons of its use. 2) Private homegrown marijuana - A: must be registered in the county of residence with the marijuana regulatory county office B: can not grow from seeds (a) must buy transplants from licensed retailer (b) strains must have low THC and high CBD C: limit of 4 plants total at any time per household D: homes with minors and/or those under the age of 25 are excluded from home growing E: growing outside a lockable & secure structure ( ex -homes, greenhouses, sheds, shipping containers) is illegal F: must commit and be open to both bi-monthly and random testing and inspection by licensed and regulated inspectors for violations & health/safety laws G: required to have 24hr video surveillance w/ daily downloads to a marijuana regulatory office - minimum number of cameras upon discretion of registrar and/or inspector 3) Commercial growers - A: must be licensed in the county of business, subject to all state and federal taxes, deductions, and benefits with the county marijuana regulatory office B: Must grow inventory in a lockable and secure structure (ex-warehouse, commercial greenhouse) C: limit of 6 flowering/budding plants & 10 transplants per registered resident within 20 miles D: those between the age 16- 25 are excluded from growing/manufacturing/sales area & all employees are subjected to random drug tests E: growing outside a lockable & secure structure ( ex -warehouse, commercial greenhouse) is illegal F: must commit and be open to both bi-monthly and random testing and inspection by licensed & regulated inspectors for violations and health/safety laws G: required to have 24hr video surveillance w/daily downloads to a marijuana regulatory office - minimum # of cameras upon discretion of registrar and/or inspector G: strains must have high CBD and low THC H: commercial growers are prohibited from private recreational selling & are limited to selling to licensed recreational facilities, supplying an attached licensed recreational facility in a joint business venture, & supplying transplants for private growers Why ? Cannabidiol"CBD"is a cannabis compound that does not make the majority of first time users & regular users feel "stoned" and lethargic to the point of incapacitating. Investigators at Kings College in London assessed the physiological & behavioral effects of CBD and THC versus placebo in 16 healthy volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. It was reported that the oral administration of 10 mg of THC was associated with various physiological and behavioral effects"such as increased heart rate and sedation"whereas the oral administration of 600 mg of CBD did not. Strains that have high THC and low CBD creates bad behavior, physiological and psychological side effects and can put the user and those around them at risk. Recreation is intended to relieve stress and promote feelings of wellbeing, which low THC and high CBD strains create, therefore strains with higher levels of THC are not needed. A .5oz daily use is large enough for a single person and the average plant under good growing conditions can produce between 1-2oz - a plant limit for home growing minimizes overuse yet allow for a leeway for underproduction & registered growers can legally sell overproduction to licensed recreational use facilities they have a contract with. Limiting commercial plant numbers minimizes over saturating the market, helps inventory control, and minimizes chances of robbery/theft. Limiting numbers in conjunction to the # of registered citizens within a 20 miles radius makes sure there is enough available to local registered customers, promoting local economies and businesses, yet opens the option of extra for visiting tourists (registered users of course) as having competing businesses will fluctuate the market depending on promotions & prices of the recreational facilities. Private growers prohibited from growing from seeds & obtaining transplants from licensed commercial growers promotes local business, makes sure that private growers can not grow high THC strains & helps in accounting for household plant limits. A regulatory system & inspectors creates jobs and taxable income in a stagnant & slowing economy and low employment rates. If all 50 states legalized cannabis today, they'd be collectively raking in more than $3 billion a year in taxes according to NerdWallet, a personal finance site. The site's estimate assumed a flat, 15 percent excise tax on marijuana -- the same as Colorado's excise tax on recreational marijuana sales, adding 2010 state and local sales taxes to that figure. The site didn't subtract medical marijuana tax revenues in the 23 states at the time that allow medicinal use of cannabis also. The post-prohibition forecast also failed to calculate reduced government spending on law enforcements never ending drug war nor the loss of revenue to private security firms running jails & prisons. In 2010, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimated more than $8 billion in annual savings in law enforcement costs if marijuana were legalized. To estimate each states marijuana sales, NerdWallet used the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Surveys on Drug Use and Health to find the number of marijuana consumers aged 25 and older. NerdWallet calculated the approximate number of pot users in each state, & applied the percentage to the U.S. population. It estimated the total U.S. marijuana market at $14 billion. 4) Recreational facilities - A: must be licensed by the registrar of the marijuana regulatory office in the county of the business location B: subject to all state, city, federal taxes, health and safety laws, retail/recreational licenses & permits & their benefits, deductions C: can not operate within 300 ft of a school, elementary, middle, and high school (private/public included and excludes homeschooling locations), licensed childcare facility, or within 150ft of a church with more then 200 regular attending members D: must obtain inventory from a licensed commercial grower or registered private grower within 100miles E: customers under the age of 25 are prohibited on site of the business at any time F: smoking is prohibited in outdoor seating (a) outdoor seating must be enclosed with a fence/wall with minimum 10ft height and preventive security measures G: smoking products and inventory are taxed at a higher rate (3times) then edibles, oils, tinctures, body and bath products H: indoor smoking is only to be in enclosed rooms with scrubbing ventilation, size and number determined by the fire marshal & marijuana regulatory office I: the facilities are required to have scrubbing ventilation in open space areas, size and number determined by marijuana regulatory office J: establishments that sell edibles, oils, tinctures, body & bath products, and not liable for its use once it has left the sales premises and are the responsibility of the purchaser K: facilities are required to have a production area on-site that is video monitored and secured for smoking buds and products, edibles, oils, tinctures, body and bath products L: facilities are to require that all their staff be CPR/ first aid certified & a RN be on staff during business hours M: facilities are required to hooked into the national register system that monitors registered users amount and purchases N: all purchasers are required to use their register cards during purchases O: Facilities are limited to 10mg of THC per serving size of any edibles/product and must properly label ingredients, nutrition, and quantity, strain of marijuana contained P: purchasers are limited to .5oz a month total from all purchases from all licensed recreational facilities in all 50 states (medical quantities excluded from total) Q: medical users are prohibited from recreational purchases |
45 | 2fa2d5d5-2019-04-18T19:44:52Z-00003-000 | Should the penny stay in circulation? | Get rid of the penny!! The quote you mention "Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost." refers to the new Lincoln nickels, not the current Jefferson nickels. Notice it says "adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable." So, I don't contradict myself and you reinforce the point that the new nickels/old pennies would cost less than current nickels and save the government a boatload of money. When I say the monetary advantage is null, I am refering to the advantage between buyers and sellers during a transaction. You're woorrying about the change situation during transactions, so I am simply explaining that when you do go to McDonald's, they will round the price, either down or up, and in the long run, prices won't be effected because over the course of several transactions, the rounding will cancel itself out (lose 1 cent, gain 2 cents, lose 2 cents, gain 1 cent, etc, etc.). The price of everything wouldn't change. It would simply be rounded to the nearest nickel. So, say your Mcnuggets cost $1.22. You pay with $1.25 and the price is rounded down to $1.20 (the nearest nickel) and you get a nickel back. This means there is no reason, whatsoever, for a new flat tax. So, not only would abolishing the penny get rid of all those pesky coins, it would save the government, and therefore taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars without effecting monetary transactions. |
20 | 84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00001-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. "My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: "The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent." The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: "Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer." (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: "The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the "Human Health" section, is one big "citation needed" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues – a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier." and it also says "The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food)." (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. "I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders." Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) "Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly." I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. "The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word "milk" appears a total of 0 times." Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: "Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk." In the section labeled "Cancer," the word "milk" shows up five times. "This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. "You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage." Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) "In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate." It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? "Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free." That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste." and in R2 I defined milk as "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc." You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate. |
38 | c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00003-000 | Should marijuana be a medical option? | Medical marijuana should be legal I apologise to my opponent for the delay in getting this up, and for the abbreviated nature of this argument. Recently, my country legalised medicinal cannabis use (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since then, we haven't had any significant cases of abuse. Our insurance costs have not skyrocketed, and niether have our taxes. We are not a destination for drug tourism, and we have not undermined our anti-cannabis stance in wider society. When people take medicinal cannabis, their doctors first assess their condition. The doctor's "do no harm" mantra prohibits them from proscribing anything that is significantly harmful for the patient. Obviously, most if not all medicines have side effects, but we allow doctors to assess what will work best for the patient because they - not the government - are the ones who know the medicine best. Ultimately we leave the decision down to the patient when a range of options are available for the same reason. To presume that some government buraeucrats have a better understanding of each patient's individual condition (if you will excuse my RoyLatham-esque expression), and thus what treatments should be available, is to undermine the entire healthcare system. Healthcare is a personal thing. Our right to life confers a responsibility for it, and our responsibility for our life empowers us to choose what medicine we take. We make exceptions in various circumstances - for young children, for instance, and for mentally impaired people who cannot understand what is involved with these decisions - but in general the rule is that illness does not rob us of our general autonomy, but rather extends it. It allows us access to public facilities, such as hospitals, just as it opens up access to prescription drugs, for the simple reason that we cannot make a choice when certain choices are prohibited. As a principle, we feel it is entirely consistant with the role of the healthcare system to legalise cannabis. You can't make a full medical choice when certain medical options, endorsed by many scientists globally, are not available to you. For instance, cannabis causes pain relief. It would be a mistake to assume that cannabis is not the right pain reliever for anybody. That's why the choice must be available, in these kinds of difficult medical situations, not narrowed down to a few government-approved alternatives. I personally do not believe there is any evidence cannabis cures anything, or has any helpful effect beyond suppression of symptoms (such as pain). However, since doctors will not have the prescribed the medicine in any situation where it would be harmful, the cannabis would never be used when it is harmful to the patient's health. Since a person who's in hospital all the time undergoing chemo is not exactly going to be drug driving or doing property crime, there's no harm to the public either. Furthermore, research on cannabis is still ongoing. Perhaps it has some helpful effect that science has not yet isolated. It must be the patient, informed by the advice of their medical professional, who makes that decision, not me, because I have no responsibility for their health. My contention is that it should be on the basis of harms to the patient, not the benefits to the patient, that medicine is administered. We already accept the principal that the relative value of benefits must be decided by the patient because we allow patients to refuse treatment. Since cannabis has no real harms when administered in the right way under proper, doctor-specified and recommended conditions, as and when appropriate, there is nothing wrong with medicinal cannabis legalisation. We do not ban the use of placebos if patients want to take them voluntarily. Patients can, if they so wish, hug a teddy bear instead of undergoing chemotherapy and pray to God to remove the desease. These are examples of placebos, and they confer no benefits, nor do they have any particular harms. Cannabis can, under most circumstances, fall in the same category. In the remainder of circumstances, doctors will intervene. As can be shown with countries where it has been legalised, such as New Zealand, this does not translate into a broader problem for society. If you don't accept medicinal marijuana, then as a principle, you deny patient autonomy. You limit the scope of healthcare. But what is of greater value than human life? Even if cannabis has few, if any, beneficial effects, that is no grounds for banning it as a choice. That is why we need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use. |
27 | 22222c8b-2019-04-18T17:32:10Z-00002-000 | Should more gun control laws be enacted? | The US Should Have Better Gun Control I find it a little bit ironic that using a picture that has a list of facts on it from a credible website is not credible according to my opponent, while using Wikipedia is. But here are some more websites that back what I say (1) (2) (3). My opponent claims that if there are more gun control laws that people will be safer, but is that true. The top ten cities in the United with the strictest gun control laws are: Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark,and Atlanta; and out of these cities 6 have the most gun violence ( New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit). So gun control in America doesn't work there is an estimate of about 270 million guns in the United States and if gun control is enacted where do these guns go. Well they would go to the criminals who would have black market deals. Compare guns to marijuana, marijuana is illegal to own by federal law, but marijuana is still one of the Untied States largest cash crops (http://abcnews.go.com...) this shows that when someone wants something they can get if even if it is illegal like guns. Look at the logistics of enacting gun control, Australia destroyed 640,381 guns after they made guns illegal it cost the tax payers 500 million dollars now imagine the cost of finding and destroying 270 million guns and we are nearing almost 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, the United States can't afford gun control. While the gun murder rate in Australia is low it doesn't mean they are safe since the 1997 ban on guns accidental gun deaths are up 300%, the assault rate is up 200%, and immediately following the 1997 gun ban overall robbery went up 200% from 1997-2002 and has increased since than 20%. crime Australia is not safe from guns just because they made them illegal (2). Compare that to the United States who has had less crime since 1993. While any death is tragic aren't we going a little over board with it. In the US 3 people die out of 100,000 from guns that means 99,997 don't die from guns. Don't give up liberties for security like Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." While the 2nd amendment can be amended the debate topic is not about amending the 2nd amendment. It is about gun control and he should have changed the topic. Pencils are a tool like guns if used right they are great if used wrongly they are not great. Gun control is not about guns it is about the government controlling you and me. Sources (1)http://dailycaller.com... (2) http://freerepublic.com... (3) http://www.justfacts.com... |
30 | 9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00002-000 | Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? | Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources: http://concealedcampus.org... |
7 | fe87277-2019-04-18T19:35:36Z-00001-000 | Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote? | The Whole World Should Vote On The US President first of all other countries already are not allowed to vote. So really they don't get a say in who leads another goverment they are a part of. so now i assume you are referring to illegal immagrants. illegal immigrants should not vote, however if they have been accepted as a citizen they should because they have accepted our laws and chosen to live by them. unless the case comes to them committing crimes i totally dasagree with them having voting privilege. Then there is american born people who have come from other countries. they too should have the same right as any other american being part of our society. |
11 | 7d81b966-2019-04-18T14:40:50Z-00003-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | An individual should be a drug addict. You are already confused lol. You really should have read the top. We both have the responsiblity to prove our part, you should have argued why its bad to be one, but you haven't, you Must present arguements to convince me I shouldn't be an addict or else you have failed your burden.Argument 1: The Desire To Do Drugs A specific reason that one individual should be a drug addict is that they enjoy being high. For them, being high outweighs any other concerns and is the primary concern in life. Because I am acting as a drug addict in this debate, and must be convinced not to be, I will tell everyone that right now I am very unconvinced. And in fact I will never be convinced, drugs are more important than any thing, money, glory, power, other people, love, its all worth nothing compared to the desire for the heroin needle in my veil. That's just the needly, the actual high is much more impartant than any of those things. Thus an individual, a drug addict, should be a drug addict because they want to be. Thanks |
17 | 2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal I do not think recreational marijuana should be made legal, this is because of a multitude of reasons for which I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I look forward to this debate. |
48 | 12e9a897-2019-04-18T19:45:48Z-00004-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | 39. Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States. "A child becomes an adult when he realizes he has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong. " Because I agree with these words of Hungarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, and because I figured that out before I was 18, I support the resolution, which states: RESOLVED: Legal age for adulthood should be reduced in the United States. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: LEGAL AGE: the age at which a person acquires full legal rights and responsibilities ADULTHOOD: the state (and responsibilities) of a person who has attained maturity SHOULD: must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) REDUCED: brought down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc. (all defined from . http://www.Dictionary.com...) Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The "legal age" is the age at which a person in the U. S. receives full legal rights. However, in these fifty nifty states not all rights are acquired on the same birthday. Indeed, if all rights were taken into consideration, the legal age might be 55 (when you can order Senior Citizen Specials at Perkins). But a good portion of these rights (pornography, voting, military, smoking, gambling, etc. ) are officially set at age 18. Therefore, I shall assume that by "the legal age," the resolution means 18, and I shall concentrate my entire case on the legal rights attained at that age. 2. The resolution does not specify what the new legal age should be, nor does it mandate that the PRO provide a specific new legal age. The debate is only about the merits and drawbacks of a lowered legal age. If the CON requires a specific age, let's just say I advocate moving it from 18 to 16. With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into three points: I: THE LEGAL AGE IS INTENDED AS A SIGN OF MATURITY. Like membership in an exclusive club, the legal age is a criterion which determines the eligibility of a person to receive some right or privilege. Legal age is an imaginary line that separates the men from the boys (or the women from the girls) in regards to a certain right. For example, a six-year-old child probably could not responsibly gamble, but a 32-year-old probably could. By defining the legal age for gambling (and other rights) at 18, the government's goal is to express that a person below that age is immature, while a person above that age is mature (in terms of the right in question). II: THIS STANDARD OF MATURITY IS CONTRADICTORY. Unfortunately, this maturity standard is rife with contradiction. Instead of having a clearly defined standard of what constitutes maturity in terms of age, the government has blurred the imaginary line to the point where it is virtually unrecognizable. There are two reasons for this, which I shall label "A" and "B. " A: The legal age has exceptions. The legal age for joining the military is 18 in general (no pun intended). However, this age does not truly represent a level of maturity, because 17-year-olds can still join the military with parental consent. If the legal age truly measured maturity, this exception would not be allowed. Another exception of the legal age is emancipation. Emancipation is a legal process by which a minor may sever all (or most) ties with their parents. While parental consent is required for students under 18 years of age for many different rights, this criterion is removed when the parents no longer have legal authority over their child. By the defined legal age, emancipated minors would still be considered immature and ineligible for the rights of an 18-year-old, but by the current legal process many of these rights become available. In both of these cases, the legal age fails to assign maturity uniformly. The imaginary line that individuals cross in the process of maturing is lowered in special cases, with no actual test to determine whether the person whom the bar is lowered for is mature enough to handle these rights. This creates a contradiction, and makes the legal age an illegitimate requirement. B: More serious rights have lower levels of maturity than less serious rights. In most states, the legal age for applying for a driver's license is 16, but it ranges from 17 (in New Jersey) to 14 � (in my homeland, the Dakotas). In any case, the legal age for this right is lower than the legal age for most other rights - 18. This is a massive error in judgment. The government assumes that a child is mature enough to handle a moving vehicle (which is rather difficult to learn, and can cause serious injury or death if used improperly) while at the same time immature with regards to voting (which has no dangers associated with it) or purchasing pornography (which, in a legal sense, is equally not dangerous). If we were to administer standards rationally, the legal age for driving would be equal to or higher than the legal age for other rights. All of these contradictions turn the legal age into a meaningless quantitative measure with no legitimacy. When a standard can be bent in special cases, and when the standard incorrectly assigns maturity for different rights, it is no standard at all. It is an antiquated and abused system that has failed its purpose of defining maturity in legal situations. III: THE LEGAL AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO CORRECT THESE CONTRADICTIONS. If the legal age for the rights given at 18 were lowered, we could remove these contradictions and re-establish the legal age as a level which would properly define and regulate maturity. All of these conflicting rights could be established at age 16, perhaps, and no exceptions would be allowed for military enlistment, emancipation, or anything else. The standard set by the government would finally have legitimacy to separate mature from immature and assign rights and responsibilities accordingly. For the above stated reasons, I support the lowering of the legal age. |
47 | 7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00008-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Students shouldnt have homework Although homework can be copied , that is only due to the fact that the homework we receive is too long. Homework is beneficial to understanding a subject and furthering your knowledge on the selected subject. Therefore Homework is beneficial to knowledge as long as it is a reasonable length to prevent anxiety. |
8 | 984c99de-2019-04-18T15:23:08Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abotion should be legal I will begin by stating my argument against abortion, and then respond to my opponent's points. To clarify, I will be arguing that abortion should not be legal, apart from cases where it is a necessary medical procedure in order to save the life of the mother. Why abortion should be illegal My argument is as follows: Premise 1: Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus Premise 2: A human foetus is alive, and so therefore a human foetus is a living human being Premise 3: It is not morally justified to remove the life of a human being Premise 4: Only that which is morally justified should be legal Conclusion: Abortion should not be legal Now I will support my premises: Premise 1 Abortion is defined as: 'Expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.' (1) We know, due to the definition of 'viable' in this context, that this procedure will necessarily kill the foetus. Therefore, abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus. Premise 2 First I will affirm that a foetus is alive, then I will use this conclusion to affirm that a human foetus is a human being. Life is defined as: 'The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death' (2) Foetuses grow and are subject to continual change preceding death (3). They have the capacity for reproduction given time to develop naturally. Furthermore, to suppose that a foetus is not alive is to either state that a foetus is dead or inanimate. It is not dead because something must have once lived in order to be dead, and it is not inanimate (4). Therefore, a human foetus is alive. All life is characterised into species (5), and as we have affirmed that a human foetus is alive we must also accept that it must belong to a particular species. A human foetus's genetic makeup is most similar to the genetic makeup of the species homo sapiens and so a human foetus is human (which perhaps goes without saying, as if it was not human then we would not refer to it as a human foetus). Therefore, a human foetus is human. Therefore, a human foetus is a human life, which is to say that it is a living human being. Premise 3 To say that it is not morally justified to remove the life of a human being is to say that we ought not to kill human beings. There are many reasons why I am justified in asserting this moral truth: Rule Utilitarian approach - Having a rule stating 'do not kill human beings' will result in a greater amount of happiness than the absence of such a rule, therefore this it is moral to abide to this rule. Deontologist approach - Killing of a human being is wrong because it is a maxim that cannot be universalised; no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted the killing of human beings. Evolutionist approach - Permitting the killing of human beings is evolutionarily disastrous, for obvious reasons. The killing of human beings is not morally justified according to the vast majority of normative ethical theories. If my opponent disagrees and argues that killing of human beings is justified (aside from cases of self-defence), then she will have the burden of proof, as she is making the positive claim that killing of human beings is morally justified. Therefore, it is not morally justifiable to remove the life of a human being. Premise 4 Although it seems pretty common-sensical that only morally justifiable actions should be legal, I will analyse it under the main normative ethical theories in order to demonstrate why only morally justifiable actions should be legal. Rule Utilitarian approach - Having a rule stating 'legally permit immoral actions' will result in a lesser amount of happiness than a rule saying 'legally prohibit immoral actions', therefore this it is moral to abide to the rule that we should not legally permit immoral actions. Deontologist approach - Legally permitting immoral actions is wrong because it is a maxim that cannot be universalised; no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted immoral actions. Evolutionist approach - Permitting immoral actions will create a society where immoral actions are prevalent, this will negatively effect the quality of our offspring and so it is not evolutionarily beneficial. I assume that my opponent agrees with premise 4, but if not, the above analysis verifies it. Therefore, only that which is morally justifiable should be legal. As I have now asserted the veracity of all my premises, the conclusion deductively follows. Therefore, abortion should not be legal. Argument from Consistency In order to hold a rational moral assertion, it must be consistent. So, in order to be rational, we must abide by the maxim: 'Treat someone as we would consent to be treated if we were in the same situation as that someone.' An example of moral inconsistency would be stating: 'I am morally justified in throwing sticks at my mother, but I would not consent to having sticks thrown at me if I was in the same situation as my mother'. I argue that abortion is inconsistent according to these terms. To assert that abortion is morally justified is to be morally inconsistent, as it is equivalent to saying: 'I am morally justified in killing a human foetus, but I would not consent to being killed if I was a human foetus.' Unless, of course, the pro-abortionist would consent to being killed if they were a human foetus, but I highly doubt they would be serious in holding this conviction. This becomes especially prevalent because it is not hypothetical, as everyone was once a foetus and so nobody can be exempt from the consistency criteria. As asserting the moral permissibility of abortion is inconsistent, it is an irrational moral belief. It is absurd to suggest that actions should be legalised if one cannot be rational in supporting them, so abortion should not be legal. I will now respond to all my opponent's arguments within the character limit I have. 'Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices.' It is definitely the government's choice to legislate against women's choices if the choice harms another human being, as abortion does. It would be odd to suggest that the government should not legislate against murder simply by virtue of the fact that a woman chose to commit it. 'Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs.' 'Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time.' I agree, but this is a false dichotomy. A baby can be put up for adoption at birth, so it is not a choice between abortion and raising a child. 'Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion' This statement has very strange implications, as it implies that anyone should be allowed to do something so long as they believe that they are morally justified in doing so. Yet this would mean that we should allow murderers who believe that their actions are morally justified to commit murder. 'A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive.' See premise 2 of my initial argument. 'A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead.' Definition of dead: 'Having lost life' (6). A foetus has never lost its life (irrespective of whether it ever had life) and so cannot be dead. 'Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion.' If one freely chooses to murder their foetus then they are, to some extent, forfeiting their protection. Let me suppose an analogy; legalising burglary would make burglaries much safer for burglars, yet this is hardly a valid justification for legalising burglary. The same applies with abortion. I agree that prohibiting abortion does not stop abortions altogether, but it reduces them significantly. In 1969 (when legal abortion facilities were implemented) there were 53643 abortions compared to 21400 when abortion was illegal in 1966 (7). This is 32243 abortions that were caused by the legalisation of abortion. I have run out of characters now, but I will finish rebutting my opponent's arguments in round 2. (1)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (3)http://www.babycentre.co.uk... (4)http://www.webmd.boots.com... (5)http://en.wikipedia.org... (6)http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (7)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... |
11 | bb7b9e0f-2019-04-18T17:42:12Z-00004-000 | Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? | Drugs in sports with that being said, drugs should be allowed in sports because it is just another means of trying to get ahead. Over training can be unhealthy and result in death but that isn't being stopped. Simply think of it this way, every athlete (to my knowledge) wants to do the best that they can in their particular sporting event/ field so why shouldn't they be allowed to make their own choices as to how they get to where they want to be? |
47 | d5f1a77c-2019-04-18T16:25:07Z-00001-000 | Is homework beneficial? | homework should be banned that is why you study and take notes in class. homework is just doing the stuff you did during that lesson. all you are doing is remembering. |
41 | 556a90b0-2019-04-18T15:17:15Z-00001-000 | Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy? | Should Student be allowed to be on phone during school In our school, we used to confiscate any cell phones that were "seen" or "heard" and hold them for parent pick-up. We soon realized that a student might need that phone for an emergency or to contact a parent. The punishment (and potential consequences) didn't seem to fit the crime. We decided this was not a battle to fight, and we "decriminalized" cell phones. Now, if a phone causes a disruption, we treat it as we would any other disruption. After all, to our students (and to us as well), the cell phone has become a virtual appendage"an essential communication tool, and not necessarily more disruptive than a student tapping a pencil. Since we rethought our policy, havoc has not reigned. Our school structure has not collapsed, and the instructional process has not suffered. We now have more time to focus on what matters: teaching and learning. |
17 | 1eca412e-2019-04-18T11:55:18Z-00001-000 | Should recreational marijuana be legal? | Should all forms of marijuana be legal In my opinion, the government and subsequently tax payers, are wasting money on arresting, incarcerating and investigating people in possession or selling marijuana. There have been no known or recorded deaths due to smoking weed, but certainly lots of evidence discussing the benefits of the drug. |
13 | 6fe337c2-2019-04-18T11:12:42Z-00000-000 | Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? | Computers can replace teachers Pro forfeited that round, So I'm not going to make too many points. One, Group projects can be monitored by teachers, But it's very hard for a computer to realize what parts of a group are failing. Two, You don't know how to handle different types of people. We've all had bad and good teachers and knowing how to handle many different types is a very important life skill. You don't get that with computers. That's all for now. Hopefully pro doesn't forfeit next round. |
3 | abae14fd-2019-04-18T17:20:05Z-00004-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | 911 inside job 1) the world trade center was a huge center of economic activity. We would never destroy a building of such economic value.2) the people who hijacked the plane were from a foriegn country.3) the U.S. government wouldn't risk exposure to an inside job on a massive scale such as that.4) you haven't listed the details of why you think it was an inside job |
8 | 95429d28-2019-04-18T19:45:05Z-00003-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should remain legal in the United States. first of all, I would like to REMIND my opponent that I do not believe that abortion should remain legal in this country. If I did, then I wouldn't be having this debate with you. Also, you said "In her argument, my opponent pronounced that we ought to do something to prevent dark alley abortions. Allow me to clarify. These are only performed during times when abortion was illegal." According to CNN's "The People Bomb", back alley abortions are performed for two reasons: 1. abortions are illegal & 2. the woman requesting the abortion does not have the funds necessary to undergo a safe and sterile abortion in a clinic. So to say that back alley abortions are ONLY performed when abortions are illegal is a misconception. You said, "Later my opponent states, "the number of clinical abortions performed in the United States was 1,200,000." and, "If abortion was illegal, this number would drop significantly." This argument is unsound in the sense that she simply says illegalizing abortions will cut this hefty number but provides no statistical evidence to support this opinion." You want evidence? Here's your evidence: According to (www.lifenews.com), in a report published by the United Nations concerning the relationship between legalizing abortions and the number of maternal deaths; and I quote: "nations with laws legalizing abortion have not seen a corresponding drop in the rate of maternal deaths...Meanwhile, other reports have shown that the advancement of medical technology, including the invention of penicillin, led to a decrease in the number of illegal abortion deaths -- not legalizing abortion." ---------------------------- According to (www.forerunner.com), in an article concerning illegal abortions and the outcome if abortions were illegal. Again, I quote: "...there were a comparatively small number of illegal abortions pre-Roe, suggesting that the total number of abortions would drop substantially if protective laws were again in effect." ---------------------------- You said, "...I have provided evidence that abortions will still be performed in a gruesome manner even if they are illegal." Where is your evidence? Because here is mine to suggest otherwise: According to (www.tnrtl.org), in an article concerning the common myth that mass-back alley abortions would be performed if abortion was illegal. And I quote: "One of the most common arguments abortion advocates make in defense of legal abortion is that making abortion illegal will cause women to go to the "back alleys" and obtain unsafe abortions. They cite how thousands of women died as a result of unsafe abortions before abortion was legalized through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision... About 50,000 women of child-bearing age die each year -- from all causes combined. To suggest that 10,000 of these deaths were from illegal abortion would make that the cause of one out of every five deaths, or twenty percent. This would have made illegal abortion the leading cause of death among women in that age group... According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the legalization of abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion-related deaths. This discovery of antibiotics in the 1940's did that by providing effective treatment for infections... Legalizing abortion should have eliminated some deaths related to illegal abortions. That is not the case. In the years from 1963-1969, there were an average of approximately 55 deaths per year due to illegal abortions. In 1970, after this initial wave of laws legalizing abortions, there were 109. Deaths from illegal abortions increased... Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths....women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise." ---------------------------- You said "In supporting abortions for rape victims, my opponent supports the resolution because she wishes for abortions to remain legal in the United States." No sir, I do not believe that abortions should remain legal. Like every rule, their are exceptions. In this case rape & physical condition is the exception; however, abortion is being used as a form of birth control, not as a means of helping the mother because of physical condition or rape. And I have scientific evidence to back that up: According to (www.tnrtl.org) in an article concerning abortions and its reasons. And I quote: "FACT: An Alan Guttmacher Institute survey found that nearly one-half of women obtaining abortions said they used no birth control method during the month they got pregnant. FACT: Add to this the fact that, at most, only five percent of all abortions are done for the mother's physical or psychological health. Rape and incest are cited as reasons for less than 1 % of all abortions. FACT: Nationally, 82 % of women obtaining abortions are unmarried. The statistics strongly suggest abortion is used as birth control." -------------------------- Also, there is scientific evidence that proves that even LEGAL abortions aren't safe. According to (www.tnrtl.org), abortions have very high risks and many complications can arise. Among which include: breast cancer, one source indicated a 140% increase risk following an abortion (British Journal of Cancer), "24.3% experience complications in future pregnancies. Complications include: excessive bleeding, premature delivery, cervical damage, and sterility.", pelvic inflammatory disease, & uterine perforations. Placenta previa - a condition producing extremely severe, life threatening bleeding in future pregnancies. Statistics show a 600% increased risk following abortion, according to the American Journal of Obs. and Gyn. Women who have had a previous abortion run a 200% increased risk of miscarriage (Journal of the American Medical Association), a 160% increased risk of tubal pregnancy (American Journal of Public Health), and an increased risk of abnormal positioning of the baby in future pregnancies after one or more abortion (American Journal of Obs. and Gyn.) ------------------ Not to mention the mental and emotional harm that an abortion brings: According to (www.tnrtl.org): "Dr. Anne Speckhard, in a University of Minnesota study, researched "long-term manifestations of abortion" (5-10 years), and found that 81% of mothers reported preoccupation with their aborted child, 54% had nightmares, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt their abortion had taken a human life. Immediately after an abortion, many women report a feeling of relief ... which is what all abortionists want you to hear. What you won't hear of is the guilt and depression that frequently follows. A national poll found that at least 56% of women experience a sense of guilt over their decision, though the pollster himself acknowledged that many women will not even admit having had an abortion. In fact, a five-year study shows that 25% of women who have had abortions sought out psychiatric care, versus just 3% of women who have not had abortions. Further, numerous studies reveal that women who have had an abortion experience a high incidence of depression, stress, low self-esteem, suicidal feelings and substance abuse." ------------------------------ Abortion does more harm than good, that is not a "personal bias", that is a cold hard FACT. As outlined by the evidence above. |
48 | aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00005-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Should the voting age be lowered The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway) |
48 | 68fec0d0-2019-04-18T19:14:41Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | There should be no voting age OK here goes: In 1971 the United States ratified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution granting the right to vote to 18-20-year-olds. The 26th Amendment was the fastest to be ratified in U.S. history. At the height of the Vietnam War most Americans realized the sick double standard inherent in sending 18-year-old soldiers to fight and die for their country when they weren't allowed to vote. Double standards didn't go away in 1971. Right now youth are subject to adult criminal penalties despite lacking the right to vote. Frank Zimring found that "Between 1992 and 1995, forty American states relaxed the requirements for transferring an accused under the maximum age of jurisdiction into criminal court,"2 and "In Colorado, for example, defendants under the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction may nonetheless be charged by direct filing in criminal court if they are over 14 years of age and are charged with one of a legislative list of violent crimes."3 What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn't a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can't vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight. Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote Just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. Teens pay an estimated $9.7 Billion dollars in sales taxes alone.4 Not to mention many millions of taxes on income, according to the IRS, "You may be a teen, you may not even have a permanent job, but you have to pay taxes on the money you earn."5 And teens do work: 80% of high school students work at some point before graduation.6 Youth pay billions in taxes to state, local, and federal governments yet they have absolutely no say over how much is taken. This is what the American Revolution was fought over; this is taxation without representation. In addition to being affected by taxes, young people are affected by every other law that Americans live under. As fellow citizens in this society, every action or inaction taken by lawmakers affects youth directly, yet they have no say in the matter. In her 1991 testimony before a Minnesota House subcommittee, 14-year-old Rebecca Tilsen had this to say: "If 16-year-olds are old enough to drink the water polluted by the industries that you regulate, if 16-year-olds are old enough to breathe the air ruined by garbage burners that government built, if 16-year-olds are old enough to walk on the streets made unsafe by terrible drugs and crime policies, if 16-year-olds are old enough to live in poverty in the richest country in the world, if 16-year-olds are old enough to get sick in a country with the worst public health-care programs in the world, and if 16-year-olds are old enough to attend school districts that you underfund, then 16-year-olds are old enough to play a part in making them better." The just power of government comes from the consent of the governed, as it stands now youth are governed (overly so, some may say) but do not consent. This is un-American. Like all tax-paying, law-abiding Americans, youth must be given the right to vote. Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote Politicians represent various constituencies; currently young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them? Lowering the voting age will give politicians a real reason to respect the desires of young people. Youth feel alienated from politics and politicians, lowering the voting age will include them in the process. The words spoken before the Senate Judicary Committee supporting lowering the voting age in 1971 are as true then as they are now, "The anachronistic voting-age limitation tends to alienate them from systematic political processes and to drive them to into a search for an alternative, sometimes violent, means to express their frustrations over the gap between the nation's deals and actions. Lowering the voting age will provide them with a direct, constructive and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a responsible stake in the future of the nation." 7 Youth have a unique perspective, they'll never have those experiences again A common argument against lowering the voting age is that it isn't a burden to wait a few years. Denying youth the right to vote isn't the same as denying women or racial minorities, according to opponents, since in a few years young people will grow up and be able to vote. Why go through the trouble to lower the age to 16 when after two years they'll be able to vote anyways? Were it that simple, then perhaps, but it isn't. Would it be acceptable to limit the right to vote to those with a certain income, reasoning that it is a flexible standard, those will less income must only work harder or wait till they too make enough to vote? No it wouldn't. Voters vote based on their individual circumstances, when those circumstances change often so do their voting habits. The concerns of a 14 year old are different than that of a 24 year old, just as the concerns of a poor man differ from that of a rich man. The beliefs and priorities of 16 year olds as a class are unique to them; we cannot expect former 16 year olds to have as accurate a perspective as those who are currently that age. If we care at all about the needs and desires of youth, they must be allowed to vote for themselves. 16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18; 16 year olds are stationary Currently the right to vote is granted at perhaps the worst possible moment in one's life. At 18 many youth leave the home and community they have lived for most their life, either to go away to college or to move away from home in search of work. At the moment they are supposed to vote they either have a new community that they are unfamiliar with or they must attempt to vote absentee back home, a process that turns off many new voters. Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote. Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. I ran out of characters. Post your argument then I will finish mine. |
48 | 452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00003-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. |
43 | 824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00004-000 | Should bottled water be banned? | Bottled water should be banned Way to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. "Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a "waste" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major "argument" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters) |
48 | 3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000 | Should the voting age be lowered? | Atheism is Femism (joke debate) hoe ya hi fvcknism si no asstheismes. esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff wil sa sagin wil norepass esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UI |
20 | 9621632a-2019-04-18T18:35:10Z-00004-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Drinking Water 1) Drinking water can serve as both a human right and a commodity. There are many companies that sell bottled water as a commodity like the Con claims and I am not denying that or saying that is wrong. However that does not completely negate the idea that humans have a right to clean drinking water because whether or not drinking water is a commodity or a right in a situation depends on two things, access to it and the right to keep it. In sub-Saharan Africa like the Con said there are many countries that are strapped in water resources. However the case is here that these areas have too little fresh water resources available to sustain their populations, not that they are taking it from people and giving it to other people. Drinking water becomes a human right when people have access to it and then that access is compromised or taken away and those people now have no other access to clean drinking water. Anything other scenario though water becomes a commodity so drinking water is a human right and a commodity, and just because it is one does not mean it negates the other. 2) If Drinking water was a human right, it would not abolish the existence of bottled-water companies. These companies take water from a place where they are not taking it away from other people, and market it as a commodity based on convenience. It is their product and they have the right to sell it, and since drinking water can be a human right and a commodity, bottled water companies can still sell these products. Lets look at the thirsty jogger in the Con's example. As the jogger goes into the store to take the water, that is plain theft because in this case the water is a commodity, a product sold by a company and put on sale. The Jogger still has other access to other sources of drinking water such as the tap in their own home or the water fountain right outside the store. If the Jogger buys the water, and then has it taken away from them, and that bottled water was the only source of clean drinking water they have in their life, THEN it is a violation of human rights. However in the jogger example shown here the bottled water is of convenience to the jogger, not of guarantee, so no human rights are in question and the jogger still has to pay for the water. " If we affirm that access to drinking water is a human right, then there is ultimately nothing stopping this scenario from becoming a very stark reality"Think of the right to free speech. A protester cant simply walk into a store and take a megaphone to go back outside and say why they think corporations are not people right? of course not. That is because the megaphone, like the water, is in this case merely a commodity sold on convenience. All humans have the right to free speech but according to what the Con's logic says there would be people stealing megaphones from stores all the time. If the Con thinks that if access to water was a right then people have the right to take water, then if the Con believes free speech is a human right then people have the right to steal megaphones too. If that person then has his megaphone taken away by a cop while the protester was not breaking any rules, then that could be an infringement on the rights of the person's freedom of speech. The water argument goes the same way because like the megaphone, the water was originally just a commodity that could be bought and sold. It is only when those things are taken away does it become a violation of human rights. 3) "all he's done is help frame the debate and claim that anything that is necessary for survival is a right. However I would like to remind all the voters that without a legitimate warrant to back this claim up, all I have to do to refute it is say that it isn't true."Here the Con is saying that I am claiming anything that is necessary for survival is a right, and wants me to provide a warrant to back this up....Human right: Includes the right to life (The Con and I previously agreed on this)Right to life: The human right that humans have the right to live Live: For a human to live they need food, water, shelter, etc. Water: Something necessary for humans to live and must have access to in order to do soIf a person is denied their only access to water, it endangers their right to live, that right is defined as a human right, so the right to access clean drinking water is a human right. |
3 | e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000 | Should insider trading be allowed? | Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am bette |
8 | 6702bcc2-2019-04-18T18:18:04Z-00004-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be legal Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So termination of a pregnancy. I argue it should be illegal, except if it dangers the woman's life. My opponent argues in all cases it should be allowed. |
19 | 6e4913a2-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00002-000 | Should gay marriage be legal? | gay people ought to have rights Darn, I was hoping you were going to forfeit. :P I could debate that gays should have less rights than they do, but that's not the position I'm taking. Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion. According to your original argument, you said that gays should have rights. My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood. My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example. That means gays have the same rights as straights, not counting your one example. If I only said "Gays have the same rights as straights," that would be wrong, which is why I included "aside from your one argument." Unless you'd like to give some more examples (and I'm aware that you now have in Round 3), my argument was technically correct as far as we had discussed. Thank you for including some more arguments. I'll put some comments on each of them, but I'll say now that technically, gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true... The right to have the option to give blood I'll talk about this further below. marriage As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it. adoption This was not included in your source. I'm assuming this refers to single parent adoption or gay couple adoption. Both of these are controversial subjects, and aren't necessarily a good thing. Discussing these would be an entirely different debate. Hospital Visitation Rights This only wouldn't be allowed if they weren't married. Basically, you're restating here that gay marriage should be legal. Also, the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely. Health insurance You make it sound like gays can't have health insurance, which isn't true. What your source said is that an unmarried couple can't automatically make decisions for each other. Aside from restating that gay marriage should be legal, this isn't really an issue. Spousal Privilege I believe that this actually is legal even if you are married. Family leave Once again, you're arguing that gay marriage should be legal. Pensions Once again, you're arguing that gay marriage should be legal. Nursing homes You make it sound like gays can't go to nursing homes, which isn't true. Other than that, you are once again basically saying that gay marriage should be legal. Home protection I've never heard of that law, but other than that, you are once again basically saying that gay marriage should be legal. Retirement savings Your source doesn't have much to do with retirement savings. It just says that a deceased spouse can have his/her spouse's stuff without being taxed. Once again, this is an argument that gay marriage should be legal. Anyway, I personally think that estate tax just shouldn't exist. Taxes Same comment as above. Social Security benefits Once again, this is an argument that gay marriage should be legal. So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal. If you wanted to argue about that, you should have started a debate called "Gay marriage should be legal." We're not talking about gay marriage here; we're talking about the difference between the rights of straight people and the rights of gay people. I didn't know we were talking about UN law. I thought we were talking about the US. Dang. And you did say declaration alone. Look at Pro's first argument under Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration..." "This isnt right. Gay people obviously are not attracted to the opposite sex. So putting an impossible condition on marriage for them to marry the sex there not attracted to denies them equal rights. In addition the right to pursue happiness. lastly I want to ask my opponent as to what influenced his opinion?" Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights". Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that. "First let me make it clear that this is not the constitution. This is United Nations Laws. The words men and women of full age does not imply man to a woman. This statement is saying women have the right to marry, and men also have the right to marry. There is not exclusive texts that say only opposite sexes may marry." Although I can't say for sure since I don't know much about UN law, I believe it was intended to mean men marrying women. It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. http://www.biblebelievers.com... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you. As for the gay animal thing, that's not very relevant. I'm not saying that it's impossible for homosexuality to occur naturally. I'm saying that although they might do it, gays are not designed to be with each other. Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay. I never said that licking someone's anus is natural either. It isn't natural, even if some people find it enjoyable. Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all. About gays donating blood: Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!" I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights. |
32 | 2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00014-000 | Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process? | Efficiency Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that 'hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data' recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11 |
8 | 7586c3c1-2019-04-18T12:26:51Z-00005-000 | Should abortion be legal? | Abortion should be illegal == Intro ==I intend to argue the following: (1) abortion bans violate the right to bodily autonomy; (2) banning abortion leads to dangerous back-alley abortions; and (3) abortion leads to more unwanted children. The word "should" refers to an obligation on the part of the government. I believe that the goal of the government is to act toward a stable society (i.e. to act in the general interest of society). This is a very broad and generally well-accepted value, which should apply because the objective of government is to ensure the stability of civilization, to act in the interests of the people in general. C1) AutonomyAbortion bans violate the right to liberty and autonomy. There are two links I'm going to establish here: first, abortion bans prevent the autonomy of individuals, and second, the government should preserve individual liberty. Bans on abortion prevent women from exercising the choice to do something. The only legitimate basis on which the government can prevent individuals from doing any action which they consented to doing is when there is a harm to a non-consensual individual. According to John Stuart Mill, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." [1] Only then can the State legitimately exercise power over individuals; else, it becomes illegitimate for not being one that is consensual. [2]Under this "harm principle," abortion shouldn't be illegal, because there is no *harm* being done to a non-consensual other. Harm to the fetus is not a sufficient argument because the fetus is not sentient until 24 weeks. [3] Before 24 weeks, therefore, the fetus cannot perceive any harm to itself -- it doesn't have interests. A harm is, by definition, a violation of a being's interests. Any concept of "harm" becomes incoherent when there are no interests or desires at play. Since the fetus can't perceive harm, harm cannot be done to the fetus, which means abortion doesn't harm anyone. I'll address any other potential "harms" in direct rebuttal to Pro's case. So, in short, abortion is a self-regarding act and there's no "harm" to anyone who doesn't consent to it. Therefore, it's not legitimate for the government to ban it. Why is liberty the best standard to place on the government? I'm going to provide three reasons. First, the harm principle acts as the limiting principle to the government. It limits political power to the *consent* of individuals. [2] This means it allows the State to retain legitimacy and remain a consensual exercise of power. Second, the harm principle is the ideal limiting principle because it is the best means to uphold the interests of the people. This is because the *each individual* is best qualified to decide their interests, since those are subjective. Thus, whenever possible, those individuals should be allowed to make decisions on their own. Liberty offers a strong metric for upholding the overall good of the people. Third, demonstrably, more liberal countries tend to have greater standards of human development. It's generally well-accepted that more civil liberties equals better development. Economists have frequently tied greater civil liberties to economic development. [4]Since the harm principle is the best limiting principle on the government, and abortion bans violate this principle, bans on abortion are illegitimate. C2) Back-alley abortionsAbortion bans cause more back-alley abortions (i.e. unsafe illegal abortions). When there are no legal/regulated abortion clinics, women turn to self-abortion or illegal abortion clinics when they are unsure of whether their baby will get adopted, either (1) in desperate positions that prevent them from having kids, or (2) *really* don't want to have kids. There's substantial empirical evidence for this. Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times explains, "A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women's deaths during pregnancy." [5] This study proves that banning abortion doesn't save fetal life -- instead, it puts the lives at risk. These back-alley abortions are particularly harmful due to the lack of regulation. The lack of sufficient controls means that illegal clinics and women themselves (when self-aborting) tend to use brutal methods such as beating a woman's abdomen hard, piercing the amniotic sac with a sharp object, and using poisons. [6, 7] The WHO explains that, as a result of unsafe abortion in illegal contexts in developing countries alone, "an estimated 68,000 women die as a result, and millions more have complications, many permanent." [8] If abortion is legal and clinics are regulated, however, these back-alley abortions reduce, because (1) women are deterred from pursuing dangerous/unregulated clinics when there are better quality and possibly cheaper legal clinics available, and (2) illegal clinics are, as a result, competed out of business and stop functioning entirely. In South Africa, after abortion was legalized, abortion-related maternal mortalities reduced by 91%. [9] D.A. Grimes, et al. explain, "Access to safe abortion improves women's health, and vice versa, as documented in Romania during the regime of President Nicolae Ceausescu." [10] Banning abortion causes tens of thousands of deaths every year, and would still be meaningless in practice because abortion rates will hardly reduce -- fetal life, therefore, isn't saved either. Since the government should pursue policies that act in overall social good, and banning abortion is a social harm, the government shouldn't ban abortion.Since a ban on abortion would violate individual autonomy and prompt dangerous back-alley abortions, Vote Con in today's debate. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] Andre Soubiran, "Diary of a Woman in White," p. 98[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com... |
47 | f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00003-000 | Is homework beneficial? | Homework Should Be Abolished Right, before I begin my arguments, I shall do a short rebuttal of my worthy opponent's arguments. I said in my previous arguments, that homework in moderate or small amounts is beneficial. I have stressed that throughout my arguments. And then my opponent went on to say that homework can be too much, and too stressful. That the child won't have any time to do homework. Well, I will elaborate this in my rebuttal, however, I said in moderate amounts. In moderate amounts, 1 small assignment a night due in two days can't be too stressful, can it?Now onto my argument. Homework enables the day to be shorter. My opponent claims that the day is too busy for the child. However, the day would be even longer without homework. Homework enables teachers to get through work that there isn't time for in class, and to finish off class work from that day. Without homework, school days would be much longer. What proof of that is there? you might say. However, one does not need proof. Logic serves the mind just as well.If my opponent's claims that "there is too much homework", just pause to think about what would happen if that homework is eliminated. How much work is done at home as homework? How many assignments, and school work is done at home? How much studying at home? Well, imagine if homework is taken away. Then how many hours would be added on the set school day? If we aren't going to be finishing schoolwork in class, and teachers can't set is at homework, we would need longer lessons. And what about those major assessments, or in high school, that huge coursework? A teacher can't set that as homework, since we're abolishing it, so it must be done in class. And classes are already full of work already, where would one find the time to do it? The answer, the school days must be elongated. So that student's "already busy day" would be even longer. Of course, you may say students will just do the work at home on their own. And they can do it on their own. But let's be honest with ourselves, how many of us actually do that? How many of us would finish of the work we did in class at home, if it wasn't set? The sad answer, not very many of us. We can't find the motivation, or work up the trouble to do it, if it wasn't mandatory or required. After all, many students just can't be bothered half the time, me included.So, if homework is abolished, school days would be much longer, and who would want that? No one. |
39 | d449ee59-2019-04-18T19:02:44Z-00008-000 | Should the federal minimum wage be increased? | The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished The debate shall proceed from the standpoint that both Pro and Con wish to maximize the consumption of lower wage earners. My task will be to show that the Minimum Wage Law as passed by the Federal Government of the United States is a poor tool to accomplish this and that this law ought to be abolished (with the implication being that any minimum wage law is suspect, but this will not be part of the parameters of this debate). The Con will try to show that the Federal Minimum Wage is effective at achieving greater consumption for low wage earners and therefore ought to remain in effect, even though the Con may disagree with where it is set. |
20 | 8781b711-2019-04-18T18:56:49Z-00007-000 | Is drinking milk healthy for humans? | Vegan Diets are Healthier I'll open by showing the evidence proving meat causes cancer. Then, I'll address mortality rates, B12, and some other issues Con raised. I will discuss obesity and iron in round 3. Cancer Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developing world[1] (the first being CVD[2]). The most comprehensive document on diet and cancer to date is "Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective"[3]. This report based its findings on 4,500 credible scientific studies and was conducted by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)[4]. From this study, two things can be said with certainty[4]: * Vegetable and fruit consumption is associated with lower risk of cancer at almost every cancer site[4]. * Meat and animal fats are detrimental[4]. According to the report, vegan dietary components (vegetables, fruits, carotenoids, vitamin c, fiber and whole grains) are the most consistently protective to cancer sites[5]. Meat, animal fat and saturated fats are the most consistently harmful dietary components to 5 cancer sites (stomach, breast, prostate, pancreas, lung) [5]. Fat, grilling/barbecuing and dairy products are the most consistently harmful dietary components to 4 cancer sites (prostate, colon, breast, stomach) [5]. The AICR and WCRF recommendations for cancer risk reduction include: * Adopt a plant-based diet rich with "vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes such as beans. "[6] * Adopt a high-fiber diet containing whole-grain bread and pasta, oats and vegetables and fruits. [6] * Maintain a low body weight[9]. The study's authors point out that plant-based foods have fewer calories and lend themselves well to this goal[6]. * Adopt a plant-based diet to reduce your consumption of energy-dense foods[7]. * Eat no more than 18 oz. (cooked weight) per week of red meats, like beef, pork and lamb, and avoid processed meat such as ham, bacon, salami, hot dogs and sausages[8]. It's clear from the evidence presented above that our very best science on the subject concludes that meat is a major cause of cancer. That same science also makes clear that plant-based foods are consistently protective to cancer sites. Rebuttal Protein Con conceded that vegetarians (though not vegans) get adequate amounts of protein. Could I, the proponent of veganism, really have won the protein argument so quickly and with no effort. I encourage Con to take another shot at this unless he truly does concede that well planned vegans diets provide enough protein. Vegan: Health Fanatics Con claims, without citation, that vegans are health fanatics and he based several arguments on this. Though the vegan diet is the healthiest and most rational to adopt, most become vegan/vegetarian for ethical reasons[28]. Only 29% become vegans/vegetarian for health reasons[28]. Two-thirds of vegan/vegetarians claim to have never obtained information on vegan diets[28]. Many of Con's arguments are spoiled by this demographic evidence. Cholesterol and Saturated Fats Vegetarians can indeed get too much cholesterol though this is irrelevant as the resolution addresses vegans. A vegan consumes no dietary cholesterol and does not need to. There are a hand full of plant sources that are high in saturated fat (coconut oil, cottonseed oil, etc. .. )[25]. These are rare and a well planned vegan diet would not make these foods routine. Indeed saturated fats are to be minimized in the diet. Vegan diets are very low in saturated fats[26] however meat eaters have a hard time reducing their intake[27]. Mortality The metastudy Con uses shows that vegans and meat-eaters share similar mortality rates while pesca-vegetarian and lacto-ovo vegetarians live the longest. It's clear (and will become clearer) why meat eaters have high mortality rates. So why do vegetarians (pesca- and lacto-ovo-) live longer than vegans? Much can be said against fish, eggs and milk (saturated fats, cholesterol, calories, toxicity[19][20][21]). However, they are good sources of omega-3s[24] and B12[21]. Since, on average, vegans are untutored in dietetics it may be assume that many vegans have not taken measures to obtain enough B12 and omega-3s. Those deficient in B12 are at risk for early mortality, heart disease and stroke[23]. Those with low levels of omega-3s are at greater risk for cancer and CVD[22]. Well planned vegan diet contain adequate amounts of omega-3s and B12; the nutrients that likely cause vegetarians to live longer. B12 Pro says B12 is "virtually all meat". However, the true source of B12 is not meat but rather bacteria[12]. Livestock animal are contaminated with B12-producing bacteria they obtain from the soil and manure in their feed[13]. However, B12 does not have to come from unhealthy animal sources. B12 can be extracted directly from the B12-producing bacteria. This B12 is used to fortify breakfast cereals[11], non-dairy beverages[10] and protein bars[14]. One cup[15] of my favorite brand of soy milk contains 100% of an adult's daily requirement of B12[10]. So which is better: B12 from contaminated animals or B12 direct from the bacterial source? When animals absorb B12 it becomes bound to the animal's protein molecules[16][12]. This makes it hard for many people to absorb B12[12][17]. These people develop B12 deficiencies and must consume the more easily absorbed B12 that vegans rely on[18]. The B12 found in fortified, plant-based foods is easily absorbed and is considered reliable[18]. 1 . http://books.google.com... (page 25) 2 . http://www.who.int... 3 . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 . http://books.google.com... (page 26) 5 . http://books.google.com... (page 27) 6 . http://www.aicr.org... 7 . http://www.aicr.org... 8 . http://www.aicr.org... 9 . http://www.aicr.org... 10 . http://www.silksoymilk.com... 11 . http://vitamins.lovetoknow.com... 12 . http://www.whfoods.com... 13 . http://en.wikipedia.org... 14 . http://lunabar.com... (click Nutrition Facts) 15 . http://books.google.com... (page 127) 16 . http://en.wikipedia.org... 17 . http://en.wikipedia.org... 18 . http://www.aafp.org... 19 . http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com... 20 . http://www.cdc.gov... 21 . http://www.americanpregnancy.org... 22 . http://en.wikipedia.org... 23 . http://www.veganhealth.org... 24 . http://www.whfoods.com... 25 . http://www.heart.org... 26 . http://care.diabetesjournals.org... 27 . http://www.cdc.gov... 28 . http://www.food.gov.uk... (section 2.2.6) |
26 | 2ea06f74-2019-04-18T19:16:19Z-00004-000 | Do standardized tests improve education? | Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standard e Resolved: public high school students in the US ought not be required to pass standardized high school exit exams to graduate. I value Quality Education. I define Quality as having a degree of excellence. I present reasons to prefer this value. 1) The resolution inherently values quality education as it is a question of how the public school systems should be run. 2) The resolution is a question of public policy and the goal of policy regarding the education system is to provide quality education. 3) The affirmative is already inherently valuing quality education since we are debating about how exit exams effect the system. The value criterion that best fits my value is the criterion of Accountability or an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility. By remaining accountable for Students educations we can lead to quality educations because we are able to help them into their path to adult hood and help them become positive contributors to out society. This links to my value in the respect that Teachers must remain accountable if their students are to properly learn. For example if your teacher tells you to read a novel for class but fails to follow through with assignments or tests you aren't properly motivated to read it correctly, whereas if said teacher made a big test on it then you would be sure to read it. This is an example of how accountability will lead to quality education. The first contention is that high school exit exams ensure that US public high school students meet basic educational standards. Standardized exit exams provide a measurement of how well or how poorly schools are preparing their students. These exams serve as a guide to what needs to be improved within an educational system. Nothing can be improved without a measurement that determines whether it is getting better or worse. Standardized tests are needed to provide an objective measurement. Standardized tests are imperfect, but they can be reliably used to measure the most basic skills, such as how well a student can read, do simple math, and writing skills. Educational policy should take into account how well those basic skills are taught. They are reliable in the sence of measuring whether a person is functional in moving on in life with a proper education. Jacob Chandler explains "If we are to remove exit exams from the school systems there is no way to ensure that students are being taught the basic knowledge that will allow them to progress in life. Furthermore, standardized tests and the net results for schools and districts have become more important in recent years as Richard P. Phelps explains. "Finally, it is possible to align instruction with the curriculum guide, content standards, and so forth (depending on the terminology used to describe the valuable student outcomes in a particular locale). And, it is obviously desirable that any high-stakes test be closely aligned with the curriculum or content standards it purports to assess. Thus, it would neither be a coincidence" nor inappropriate" if the well-aligned instruction and testing bore a strong resemblance to each other. This is sometimes mistakenly referred to as teaching to the test where the more accurate (and supportable) practice should probably be distinguished by use of a different descriptor, such as teaching to the standards or similar. " Thus we can see that exit exams are ensuring that teachers are instructing students on the necessities they need need to learn. Secondly Governments are able to help schools based off of these high school exit exams. By staying with the administration of exit exams we ensure that teachers are teaching students basic skills that will help them throughout their life. Through exit exams we can monitor a schools educational system because if their score drops low enough the government can reform the system an example of this is, child left behind and many other programs. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, outlines the degree of improvement that schools should make in student achievement on standardized tests each year. This federal law also stipulates the consequences for schools and districts that do not reach annual improvement goals. Thus you negate. Moving On to my opponents case. Their Value is justice however their definition is conforming to the standard of right behavior however wether or not there are exit exams do not necessarily condone right behavior. Furthermore I already applied 3 warrants as to why my value precedes theirs. Thus you must look towards my value. My opponent does not provide a criterion thus we can never deduce when we are justice or how through what mechanism we can achieve it through thus my case precedes his. I address and negate his contention by saying they do not measure intelligence but basic educational standards thus his argument does not stand. furthermore if a student cannot pass a measure of basic educational standards they would not have received the grades of high achievement and even if they fail they can retake the test any number of times. Contention 2 provides no solvency no exit exams will not eliminate dropouts and as I stated before these are only basic skill tests if they cannot pass basic 8th grade English and 9th grade math they will obviously not pass the 12th grade. contention 3 as i stated with my card by Phelps it is preferable to align standards with this test and furthermore we need the fundamental skills the exit exam test you cannot take chem without knowing basic algebraic expressions. As i state all of his points are void and i win this debate because 1. he cannot necissarily uphold justice by using exit exams and all of his contentions are void based off of the arguments i gave him i urge an affirmative ballot. |
18 | d22f2d43-2019-04-18T19:26:50Z-00003-000 | Should churches remain tax-exempt? | There are more churches than Circle Ks Since the Instigator failed to set a geographic location I will assume that he means "There are more churches than Circle Ks on Telecom Parkway in Temple Terrace Florida." There are in fact no churches on this street and one Circle K. This is easily verifiable by using www.google.com or any reliable GPS tool. |
6 | 561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00004-000 | Is a college education worth it? | College is worth it This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals |
40 | 12a4e941-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00003-000 | Should the death penalty be allowed? | On balance, Death Penalty as a punishment has a negative impact on the society I thank Con for his timely argument. And I hope the atrocious formatting doesn't take away from the content of the arguments. Pardon my technological incompetence. Rebuttals: Guilty can't ever kill again: Con argued that Capital Punishment helps society by preventing the guilty by ever killing again. A person punished with life imprisonment without parole cannot either, by the same logic. In a state without death penalty as a legitimate punishment, LWOP is the obvious substitute. A person who was granted life imprisonment without parole even when there was a possibility of death penalty would probably be given the same punishment when there'd no possibility of the same. Unless Con is arguing the death penalties should be given out more rigorously (which would lead to an increase in innocent being convicted, as an obvious unintended consequence), this doesn't really give any support to death penalty argument.Con supports his contention using examples. However, it should be noted that murderers have the lowest rate of recidivism. In fact, just 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide again. Compare that to recidivism rate among robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%). Even rapists have a higher rate of recidivism at 2.5%. [1] Thus it is fair to assume that the decision mechanism used by the government to ensure that a murderer is granted parole/ limited time imprisonment is working. The risk the society faces has been overweighed by a few high profile sensationalist cases. Another point my opponent brings up is the failures of security system. Although the problem of security failure is more of an externality than a norm, there are two points to be noted here: a) A person on a death penalty row would be more desperate to exploit these security failures, given that men intrinsically fear death more. And they have less to lose. Abolition of death penalty, then, would actually be useful here. However, even people on life sentence, if have the capability to exploit these failures, wouldn't really be averse to use them. The inherent solution here is to improve the security; this doesn't really say anything about the kind of sentence laid out. b) A person who has been given the ultimate verdict of death penalty still has years to go before the ultimate execution. Prisoners have to wait years before the final execution takes place due to time consuming appeal procedures mandated in the jurisdiction. The time between sentencing and execution has increased steadily between 1977 and 2010. In 2010, a death row inmate waited an average of 178 months (close to 15 years) between the sentence and the final execution. [2] Thus at any given point of time, there is a high probability that death penalty inmates would escape, the basic problem wouldn't go away ever, contingent on the fact that the security doesn't improve. That is the unintended consequence of having a complex and time consuming appeal procedure. Lastly, my opponent points out that the death penalty acts as a safeguard of the sanctity of life imprisonment, since people focus on abolishing death penalty rather than life imprisonment. The argument has a flavor of slippery slope, since under this particular contention, we aren't arguing against life imprisonment. a) The social and cultural contingencies of European Union are widely different from those of other parts of the world. b) The arguments against death penalty are in an entirely different vein from the arguments against life imprisonment. Abolition of death penalty relies on a strong life imprisonment policy. Even if abolition of death penalty leads to abolition of life imprisonment, that doesn't strengthen the case for death penalty. IF death penalty is morally abhorrent and socially futile, the fact that it would lead to abolition of life imprisonment doesn't really say much. It shouldn't be kept on *just* to keep life imprisonment in place.2. Deterrence: As I stated in my first round, the studies on deterrence impact have been consistently non-conclusive. On April 2012, National Research Council was asked to assess whether the available evidence provides a scientific basis for answering questions of if and how the death penalty affects homicide rates. The committee examined studies that have been conducted on deterrence and the death penalty since the 1976 Supreme Court decision in Gregg vs. Georgia, which ended a four-year moratorium on executions.It concluded that "that research to date is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, these studies should not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate or has no effect on it should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."[3] Thus the deterrence impact my opponent speaks of has already been refuted by the NRC. For the murderers themselves stating that they didn't kill because of teh hanging sword, for example, there was the basic statistical error of an incomplete and implausible model of potential murderers perception of and the response to the use of capital punishment. Defense Futile: Con raises an important point. Why have these qualms with just death penalty? Why not every form of punishment? The answer is because death penalty is the only punishment that fuels off the public cry for justice, and thus has the highest probability of being wrought in political and social contingencies. When a person is being granted death penalty because he's to be isolated from the society, the aim can be easily fulfilled by punishing him with a LWOP. It is this, and solely this punishment, that tries to gain something extra- it is not enough to isolate him, he has to be killed by the state to *prove a point*, the point that his crime was so heinous that his life isn't worth living. This arbitrary line is what is decided by the state, and exactly why the devaluation of life comes into picture. There are no positive impacts coming off from death penalty, the only extra *impact* it has on the society is the political and social demons it satisfies. And it should be noted, again, that the social demons are never satisfied fully. In fact, with one death penalty, a standard for the future referral of death penalties is set, fuelling this collective social desire for murder. Innocence: It seems that Con is okay with innocents being murdered as long as some guilty are being killed off (even though LWOP would ensure that the guilty people do not interact with the society, and result in essentially the same outcome). It has to noted that we do not know the definable amount of lives being saved by death penalty, given that there is strong research on both sides, and the latest research blew holes in all of them. He agrees that the innocent ARE being killed though, so that's one argument down. Secondly, the only reason Life imprisonment isn't given that much urgency while reopening cases is because death penalty is more urgent. With death penalty being abolished, LWOP would be the highest level of punishment, and would be given due focus. Todays judicial behaviour can't be modelled on a potential future system. I look forward to the next round. [1] http://www.bjs.gov... [2] http://journalistsresource.org...# [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... |
16 | 16e6c023-2019-04-18T13:26:42Z-00007-000 | Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers? | All drugs should be Legalized Alright, in this debate whoever chooses to combat my belief will need to believe that not all drugs should be legalized and Id prefer someone who strongly thinks that the current drug policy's are fair. No personal attacks are allowed and you can only attack my position in this debate. For example you cannot call me a "drug addict" since this is not an attack on my stance in the argument. This is my first debate on the website so. .. hopefully I do well. I've set the maximum argument size to 6000. When you obtain information on your stance please make sure to cite your source. This shall be the format in use: 1. The instigator laying down rules 1. The contender acknowledgement and consent to the rules. The contender must also breifly explain WHAT they believe but not why. 2. My argument 2. Your rebuttal and counterargument. 3. My rebuttal and counterargument 3. Your rebuttal and counterargument 4. Summary 4. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.