query: Should the voting age be lowered?

positive: Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.

positive: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.

positive: voting age should be lowered It's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote? http://www.phillyburbs.com...

positive: Lowering the voting age Ladies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called "kangaroo youth" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, "Get out the Vote" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's "Get out the Vote" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.

positive: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Before I launch into my arguments, I think it reasonable to provide some context to our Democratic Republic and the purpose of voting. This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves. As indicated, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. In the history of the United States, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as the vote has been expanded to groups that initially could not vote. For example, consider the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. It is time that the liberty and sovereignty embodied by capacity to vote for President be extended to 17 year olds. For what reason could be given to restrict the liberty of 17 year olds. John Locke argued that The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free"(1) The question of this debate is therefore, do 17 year olds possess the capability of reason. I submit that clearly, 17 year olds are as capable as those 18 years old. The difference between the two ages is negligible at best. The law of the land in most respects acknowledges this. Consider 17 year olds pay taxes (2), drive vehicles, be tried as adults for crimes, and can even die for their country serving in the military. (3) It seems arbitrary to submit 17 year olds to all the responsibility of 18 year olds without the power or sovereignty to vote. Until 17 year olds are granted the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military, but being unrepresented in the government to which they are subjected to is tyrannical. My opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. As I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro! Sources (1) . http://www.constitution.org... (2) . https://www.irs.gov... (3) . https://en.wikipedia.org...

positive: 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 ï¿½ (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.

positive: 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.

positive: lower the voting age to 16 Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages

positive: The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16 In the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth?

positive: The voting age should be lowered to 16 The younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.

positive: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?

positive: Voters should be required to take a test before voting Side-resolution- Voting age limit should be dropped if there is voting test. Lack of knowledge is the reason why voting is 18 plus, right? Then why people who don't anything about the candidates allowed to vote? Surely there should be test for voting, and the age limit dropped.

positive: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Because of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.

positive: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on "my side of the fence", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. "The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14." 2. Compromise. "The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17." 3. Alternative solution. "Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis." You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.

positive: Voting Age I think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)

negative: The Two-Party System Doesn't Work 2. There is a basis perhaps but as you said not one that has to be direct. I'm fairly sure that I've made an adequate implicated comparison. Refutations: 1. And how does it do that? 2. It's not based on favors, it's based on party loyalty which increases the more parties are pitted against each other which increases further the less competition there is. It's like how as say, football progresses, people get more interested. In the pre-season only the hard core fans are interested. Then as it moves on you get more an more people paying attention up to the Super Bowl where even people who usually don't care about football gets excited. When you eliminate other forms of competition, people naturally get more competitive. That and with fewer contenders you're less likely to watch your P's and Q's. It's a monopoly effect - if there are many reasonable choices then people are more likely to abandon a company that does something distasteful. If there's only two and they're radically different, people are far more likely to keep their pick and simply defend the inadequacies. 3. It's the 2010 election and people had their opinions on health care long before that election or even before health care passed. And you bring up another point. People expected Obama and the Democrats to fix the economy. Is the economy fixed? Some people say yes, some say no. You know where that major separation is? In parties. The Republicans capitalized on things like unemployment and gas prices to try and get people to their side. Which is another issue with parties - the fewer you have, the easier it is to simplify a complex issue down to a black and whit one. With multiple parties, there's more room for gray areas. With parties, everything tends to be black and white. There's no talk of the economy improving. No talk of the economy in this area or that. It's either "the economy is good or it isn't" and both parties use this simplification to try and win voters which is very easy because most voters have minimal knowledge of how the economy works and will mindlessly quote their favorite pundit to pretend they do. Just as a sub point, and yes this would apply to multiple parties as well - parties love to make people feel smart. Even if they're not smart. It's how they get voters. Just more evidence that voters don't make decisions based on facts most of the time. 4. i. You remove the "black and white" premise, you remove the active, mindless competition and what do you have? Compromise. I'm not expecting everyone to be friends. However there has to be methods of removing what increases that strenuous relationship to begin with. ii. No it's the essence of a two-party system. But thank you for bringing up that word - popular. Popular doesn't mean good does it? It doesn't mean that anything will actually get done. It just means someone is liked. It doesn't denote experience or anything. And in this case, it's a contrarian thing, as I said before. People are going to mindlessly switch back and forth. Every election it's the same "No third party is going to win so I have to vote for a major party, but I don't like how things are going right now so I'm going to vote for the opposite". Again, look at our track record. We switch from one party to the other every one or two administrations. This isn't a healthy way to function. Clearly either neither one is any better than the other or the American people are fickle and don't know enough to deserve voting rights. If you give them some more options we might break this chain and start voting based on characteristics because, once again, we remove the black and white. It's easy to choose when you base your logic on "I believe this way and this party is the opposite of me". iii. Filibuster is another thing I don't agree with - as you can see it's well abused and it seems like a whiny tactic so if one person disagrees they can halt all productivity for as long as they desire and is yet another problem with a two-party system. If we're going to have things like that in place, then we can't have two parties pitted against each other like we do. 5. How can you? 6. Yes they would. I would not feel sorry just because the media would have to work, and make more time to give an equitable amount of time to ALL the party runners instead of two, and make time to issue all different points of view instead of the "black and white" (again). I would not feel sorry that they can't waste time on petty issues like they do now that encourage voters to vote based on completely irrelevant things. 7. How so? You made a statement about Meg Whitman. I refuted it. 8. Well then fewer uneducated voters would vote, which I don't think is such a bad thing. Everyone wants number numbers numbers. But the fact is, numbers don't mean anything if 50% of them aren't informed. If 100 people take test, that doesn't mean anything if half of them fail. If we give people more, then those who have no interest in KNOWING about the candidates will scurry off. Most likely, these are the ones that didn't research the candidates we have now. You give more work and suddenly people can't just base their decisions on "one or the other". 9. As an American person, I can testify, that American people are pretty stupid. For the couple of well educated people I know, I know several more who registered American Independent because they thought that was the same as just dependent, who doesn't even realize there are other candidates to vote for, who thinks that the Green Party is the "marijuana party". I'm sorry that it's so hard to accept, but the American people are very irresponsible and very uninformed about their voting. 10. But it's still a commentary. 11. I have too. Stating that I have not does not make it so.

negative: Athenian Democracy That is what the Athenian constitution states, but then following that it also says that the current citizens get to vote on whether the new candidates get to vote or have to be sent back to the ranks of boys. The government shouldn't get a say on whether who can vote, as long as they are of age and have been through military training. The Athenian citizens have to much say in who can vote. Our Democracy has a say in who gets put into office, but does not have a say in who can vote as long as they are of age.

negative: SHould voting be mandatory for all US citizens NO ALL CHiLDREN IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH AND MOST PPL WHO DO NOT VOTE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS.

negative: Term limits for legislators Term limits undermine voter liberties to choose

negative: should drinking age be lowered My mistake i meant to put 16 years old I apologize. Since my opponent has not actually given me anything to debate my current argument stands.

negative: marriage age should be lowered Purpose of marriage is sharing property(including kids). Couple can live together without marriage as well. I will not fulfill my opponent's irrational request of 10 reasons. Since my opponent gave 0, my 2 will be more then enough.

negative: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. To begin this debate, I'd like to start by first examining the negative position before segueing into my own. In a recent forum, my opponent has cited 4 reasons for his advocacy in not allowing interaction with police officers to be recorded: 1) Cops will be unnecessarily scrutinized 2) Cops need to react to a situation quickly 3) Cops already have a lot of restrictions 4) Everyone need not be a journalist These are the statements Con should be held accountable for defending [1]. Indeed Con is not the only one to hold this position; many officials have defended laws that prohibit recording cops noting similar reasons of precaution and safety. However the laws prohibiting audio recording are actually eavesdropping and wiretap laws that were designed to protect private conversations. So the question becomes: what is private and what is not? This distinction further becomes unclear when you consider the fact that the government can legally record citizens (so why not the other way around?). Let's look at Con's first point. He notes that the problem of recording is that cops will then be judged for their actions, no matter how justified. Of course I see no problem with this and in fact regard it as a good thing. If a situation arises and a cop reacts in accordance to his or her training, then his action is *justified* and he has no reason to fear this law. Now, Con's response will presumably be that the government uses the same excuse (that only wrong-doers need worry) when justifying the privacy invasion of citizens through cameras and other means. I negate. I contend that the comparison is far from analogous considering the role and authority that police offers have in society compared to regular citizens. For instance, if I walked up to a stranger and asked to see his ID, they would probably look at me and tell me to bugger off. However if a PO made the same request, one would typically surrender their ID and follow any other instructions given. Further, if I were to randomly attack someone in the street, people may attempt to jump in or call the police to rectify the situation. However in an instance where a PO was seen in the same circumstance, people's reaction would be a lot different. My point here is this: If you're going to give someone as much power and authority as POs have, then there should be a lot of checks on that power to ensure no rampant abuse - as history shows us that power tends to manifest "power trips" among those with authority [2]. Con's second point was that cops must always be on their toes, and not have to second-guess their actions in life or death situations. However, it logically follows that if one's life was in fact threatened, that reacting accordingly would not warrant any unjust attention or punishment. Due to the risk involved in a profession such as law enforcement, it's reasonable to consider the threats one endures and assess whether or not their reaction was appropriate. Next, Con points out that cops "already have to worry about restrictions." To me this seems a bit comical. Cops are given far more leeway in their authority than almost any other profession (aside from the military or other government agencies). These 'restrictions' are completely unclear to me. In 2006, numerous cops in plain clothes approached Sean Bell and friends in a car, and shot the three of them over 50 times in a matter of seconds [3]. The officers were found not guilty of any crime. In 1999, completely unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by more cops in plain clothes [4]. Again, all officers were found not guilty of any crime. So far history shows us that police can do the most heinous and unjustified things (not necessarily these 2 examples, but in general) and get away with it [2]. So, Con will have to expand on this point and explain to me the "restrictions" cops apparently have to worry about, considering they are typically not held accountable for their crimes. Finally, Con asks why "everyone has to be a journalist" and report things like this "whether they're justified or not." I'll be frank -- to me this is an absurd question, but one that segues perfectly into the affirmative aspect of this debate. Citizens should be empowered to impose limits on the State by holding them accountable and subject to the same standards of civilians. There are far too many circumstances in which police completely abuse their power and authority! Thanks to recording technology, we have been able to catch a significant number of police acting completely outside their realm of authority to abuse their power and subject citizens to unjust treatment. One site depicts a cop arresting a Burger King employee because he THINKS she gave him the wrong change. The site also shows a cop threatening to ruin this kids life *by making up charges* after pulling this kid over for parking a suspicious vehicle in a commuter lot. You can also watch a cop knee a 70 year old lady in the forehead [5]. Stories of police brutality or other wrongful prejudice and attacks are NOT few and far between. In fact, a quick Google search or perusal of YouTube details millions of cases. I think almost everyone can recount a bad experience with a police officer. The bottom line is this: Because cops have so much power and influence in the legal community, ensuring that they're acting in accordance with the power bestowed upon them is paramount to upholding justice. I previously mentioned a cop threatening to make up false accusations that could literally ruin a young person's life. This is criminal and officers like this need to be caught and punished. The only way to gain proof of these acts is to record it. A "he said, she said" situation with a cop usually ALWAYS winds up in the cop's favor, making tangible evidence not only an asset but a requirement if you expect results. Additionally, I noted earlier that these laws were originally derived to protect private conversations. However, if a cop is talking to me, is this a "private conversation?" It seems logical that because I am a part of the conversation, that it does not exclude me from said conversation or the rights to said conversation - including recording it. However one Chicago man was arrested and released on 20,000$ bond simply for recording his own arrest [6]. He is being put on trial for an offense which carries with it a 4-15 year jail time penalty. This makes the eavesdropping law completely baseless considering it's not "eavesdropping" if one is being directly addressed! Now, considering all of the power an officer has in not only using discretion to determine if an arrest is necessary or not (consider, for example, the Burger King case I mentioned) but the fact that cops can and do assault people in the process of these arrests signifies that recording should be an option when you factor in how many times the events that took place either directly prior to or during the arrest have an impact in the ultimate court case that ensue. When my ex was bludgeoned by officers, the plethora of pictures of her black-and-blued body taken directly after the incident were not enough to incriminate the cops because there was no proof that the bruises were from them. Had evidence been allowed to be submitted (without fear of further punishment), she could have proven her case and had the officers appropriately disciplined. However without permissible evidence, there is no way to get these cops punished. Cops' word always have greater weight. I'm out of characters for now, but I greatly look forward to further proving my case in the upcoming rounds. Back to you, Volkov! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...

negative: Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. ï¿½ The right to vote is one of the most important human rights. It gives men and women the chance to have a say in the way they are governed. It allows them to get rid of bad governments and makes sure that any government listens to its people, for fear of being thrown out at the next election. It is one of the most important ways in which other rights (e.g. free speech, the right to a fair trial) are protected. Not every country in the world is a democracy, with free elections giving citizens a fair political choice. But the right to vote is spreading and outright dictatorships are increasingly few on every continent. Yet what should that right to vote mean? A century or so ago almost no countries allowed women to vote, and it took decades of struggle for them to win political rights.

negative: marriage age should be lowered well a lot of people should know that divorce is an option but if you are willing to make a sacrifice and marry who ever they want if they love the person that they want to marry. I am pretty sure that younger kids will make good decisions about using protection and being safe and it is also up to the parents to decide if they want their kid to have a good safe happy life. I feel that I cant be happy if I am not married. people deserve a chance not just being judged before they even get a chance

negative: The Legal Drinking and Gambling Age Should be Reduced to 18 Though some of the things you say make perfect sense on the surface level, and in some cases would apply, on the whole they are pretty much dead wrong. I will first disprove your arguments, and then make a few closing comments. First, you say that the 21 mandatory minimum age is unconstitutional. However, although the MLDA act was made by Congress, it is each states' option to pass it or fail it in their own state. The reason why all 50 states did was because they saw the risks of making a minimum drinking age under 21 and the dangers that would occur to their law-abiding citizens. Next, you say that lowering the drinking age would have no real danger on society and other Americans' lives and liberties, however, this could not be farther from the truth. According to the American Medical Association, there was a 141% increase in DWI accidents in states that had a MLDA of 18 years old. By lowering the drinking age, you greatly increase the risks of accidents on the road, showing just how much lowring the MLDA would harm society. In addition, traffic fatalities increased 35% in these sates, which just shows how dangerous the road would be. Your next argument states that by lowering the age, it would reduce binge drinking later on in life, as that is what happens in Europe. While this makes sense, in America this wouldn't work. A New York study showed that those who drank at earlier ages were in fact MORE likely to drink heavier in college and throughout their life. So instead of decreasing binge drinking, a lower MLDA would in fact INCREASE the likelihood of that happening. To close, I feel that lowering the minimum legal drinking age would be a blatant violation of vast amount of Americans' lives liberties and pursitus of happiness. I feel that it would only harm America and all of her people, and is not only unconstitutional, but a bad idea on the whole. Thank Vexonn, that was a good debate, and I would like to remind all voters to p[lease vote on who you thought debated the best, not on your own personal views in the issue, and thank you again.

negative: Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. The order will be NC, then AC. CON's CASE Compulsory voting poses a risk to the foundations of effective democracy. Thus, I negate. Observation One: This resolution, by its own terminology, is not U.S.-specific; thus, this topic must be debated globally. I Value Democracy, as it is the ultimate good implied by the resolution. Democracy is defined by American Heritage Dictionary as a "majority rule" government that embodies "principles of...respect for the citizens within a community." I offer the Criterion of Reducing Illiberal Democracies. Fareed Zakaria defines illiberal democracies as one in which the people have a voice in government but lack the necessary sub-culture to make informed decisions. Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, "democracy rests on an informed and educated populace. Education enables people to know their rights and how to exercise them." Therefore, it is important to ensure that the vast majority of the electorate is educated prior to making voting compulsory, because compulsory voting would naturally bring people who are ill-informed and unable to cast an educated vote to the ballot box. Contention One: Illiberal Democracies are extremely dangerous, and undermine the principles of equality and respect necessary for true democracy. Prof. Amy Chua of Yale notes that, within illiberal democracies "increasing the political voice and power of the majority has fostered the emergence of demagogues"like Zimbabwe"s Mugabe, Serbia"s Milosevic, Russia"s Zyuganov, Bolivia"s Great Condor, and Rwanda"s Hutu Power leaders"who opportunistically whip up mass hatred against the resented minority, demanding that the country"s wealth be returned to the "true owners of the nation."" Professors Dye and Ziegler contend that, "despite a superficial commitment to the symbols of democracy, the masses have surprisingly weak commitments to the principles of individual liberty, toleration of diversity, and freedom of expression when required to apply these principles for obnoxious groups or individuals"Masses are dangerously vulnerable to demagogic appeals to intolerance, racial hatred, anti-intellectualism, class anatagonisms, anti-Semitism, and violence"demagogues, are mass-oriented leaders who express hostility toward the established"are extremists and intolerant, impatient with due process, contemptuous of individual rights, anxious to impose their views by sweeping measures, and often willing to use violence and intimidation to do so"These tactics appeal to mass desire for simplistic solutions to societal problems." Contention Two: Compulsory voting will bring in uneducated and ill-equipped voters; it will also increase irresponsible voting practices in the voting booth, thus increasing the chances of forming an illiberal democracy. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting brings in uniformed voters. Prof. Michael Pitts claims, "empirical research lends support to the argument that higher turnout at elections may just lead to additional voters casting uninformed votes"A study of compulsory voting compared voters who were compelled to vote with voters who would not have voted absent the compulsory voting regime. That study determined that those forced to cast ballots by compulsory voting were "less inclined to make their decisions in a way that coherently reflects their issue preferences" and that this increases the likelihood that an election outcome "will not accurately reflect the distribution of voter preferences" In addition, less informed voters might be more likely to cast ballots in favor of incumbents merely because of name recognition, or might be more likely to cast a ballot based solely upon the racial identity of the candidates. In essence, there are some plausible reasons to think that higher turnout could result in a less informed electorate and less accurate elections." Sub-point B: Compulsory voting will not makes voters more likely to get informed. Prof. Sarah Birch notes, "compulsory voting fails to raise levels of political knowledge. Those who vote due to compulsion may have little incentive to inform themselves, and some may actively resist the acquisition of relevant information as a form of protest...one of the main objections that opponents of compulsory voting have to the institution: that it brings uninformed voters to the polls, and that voting on a random basis by the uniformed can, under certain circumstances, have a substantive impact on the outcome which could well be construed as being undemocratic." Sub-point C: Compulsory voting promotes random voting. Prof. Mark Wattenberg observes, "People with limited political knowledge might deal with a compulsory situation by making dozens of decisions the same way they choose lottery numbers. In Australia, this is known as the "donkey vote," for people who approach voting like the game of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey."" In other words, people will vote for the person who appears first in the list, or whose name they like best, or some other equally arbitrary factor. These votes dilute the pool of votes that are cast by responsible voters, and therefore, this "randomizing" effect can impact the results in a negative way. Sarah Birch furthers, writing, "random voting could alter electoral outcomes, and that the larger the number of random votes, the greater the likelihood that electoral results would resemble a coin-toss. Enhancement of the stochastic element of the electoral process would lead to a deterioration in the democratic validity of the results, and it would impair the ability of elections to provide an accurate tool for translating popular opinion into political outcomes." In conclusion, compulsory voting leads to uneducated and random voting practices; as a result, illiberal democracies become more likely. Because illiberal democracies are antithetical to the notions of equality and respect inherent in true democracy, it is vital that we negate. PRO's CASE: V: Equality - Pro fails do define equality, so I will offer a definition from Merriam-Webster: "the state of being equal" where "equal" means "same as another." Therefore, equality would necessary imply that all individuals should be placed into a state wherein they are as much the same as they can get. This could lead to ethically questionable practices such as resource redistribution, and could deprive those individuals who work harder to their just due, in order to ensure that everyone is treated "the same." Thus, equality is not necessarily intrinsically valuable. C: Governmental Legitimacy - cross apply my case here. Clearly, if a democracy becomes illiberal, it loses its claim to legitimacy. But, moreover, Pro's definition of his criterion is unable to achieve his value. He defines his criterion as implementing the desires of the majority. Let's say that the majority of people in Nation X decide to pass a law that would outlaw being brunette on pain of death. Brunettes would be subjugated to persecution, and thus would be treated unequally. So, her own criterion, as she defines it, could undermine rather than support her value. C1: Pro's own card admits that Pro would have to include the uneducated in the process. Furthermore, in all of the examples Pro cites, many of the first leaders elected were voted into power by the poor and vulnerable. Mugabe in Zimbabwe was elected because he won the black, impoverished vote. He was a demagogue, they were his sheep, and thus arose an illiberal democracy. Finally, the viability of poor candidates is more so an issue of campaign finance laws then it is compulsory voting. C2: Apply the following: Prof. Sarah Birch notes, "compulsory voting fails to raise levels of political knowledge. Those who vote due to compulsion may have little incentive to inform themselves, and some may actively resist the acquisition of relevant information as a form of protest..." Pro's source talks about "suggestions" and "hopes," not likelihoods. Many will just see compulsory voting as a burden that they just have to deal with, not as a valuable means of participation, and so will continue to do the bear minimum. Finally, the Halperin evidence is not only U.S-restrictive, but it ignores the threats that illiberal democracies pose. C3: There are three attacks I will make here: (1) that we have a right to choose not to vote, (2) there is not duty to vote, (30 abstention is important for political expression. 1. Prof. Sarah Birch writes, "the analogy is frequently made between electoral compulsion and the styles of political persuasion employed in authoritarian or totalitarian states""a totalitarian view of political life easily involves an obligation not only to vote, but to do much more--and to do it all moreover, in the 'right' direction.' "When the people are forced to choose democracy, it is no longer a choice." 2. Prof. Anabelle Lever writes, "voting is at best, only one form of democratic political participation, and from some perspectives not an especially important or attractive one. So, from the fact that political participation is valuable, it remains to be seen what importance we should attach to electoral participation. The second difficulty is that people who value self-government can have moral as well as pragmatic reasons not to vote." 3. Lever writes, "Rights to abstain, to withhold assent, to refrain from making a statement or from participating may not be very glamorous, but can be nonetheless important for all that. Rights to abstain, no less than rights of anonymous participation, enable the weak, timid and unpopular to protest in ways that feel safe, and that require little coordination and few resources. These rights are necessary if politics is to protect people"s freedom and equality, and therefore to reflect their duties as well as their interests." My citations will be posted in the "comments" section. With that, I firmly negate the resolution. Over to Pro.

negative: the voting age should be lowered to 16. My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus I have won this debate. They have no argument and my case still stands strong.

negative: the voting age should be lowered to 16. My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus their entire case can be considered null and void as of now because they have not responded to my refute. Hopefully, they will post in the next round...

negative: August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Alchemist for suggesting this very interesting resolution, and 1harderthanyouthink for organizing this tournament. Increases voter turnout I doubt that my opponent would challenge this argument. Compulsory Voting (CV) would lead to a significant increase in Voter Turnout. When Australia implemented CV, the voter turnout increased from 57.99% in 1922 to close to 95% in every election afterwards [1][2]. In Belgium, the voter turnout is around 90% [3]. On the other hand, the voter turnout is much lower in countries that don't have CV,. For example, UK's turnout was 66.12% in 2015 and only 35.4% for elections regarding who would represent them in the EU parliament [4]. The United States doesn't fair much better when only 36.4% voted in the elections in 2014 [5]. Low voter turnout leads to unequal participation Arend Lijphart writes that "Political equality and political participation are both basic democratic ideals. […] In practice, however, as political scientists have known for a long time, participation is highly unequal. And unequal participation spells unequal influence–a major dilemma for representative democracy […] in which the "democratic responsiveness [of elected officials] depends on citizen participation", and a serious problem even if participation is not regarded mainly as a representational instrument but an intrinsic democratic good. " [6] In a democracy, we ought to strive for equal participation. As Compulsory Voting clearly increases voter turnout, it can be seen that it easily solves the dilemma of unequal participation. Unequal participation has dire effects on the less fortunate and less represented Georg Lutz and Michael Marsh write: "The standard view is that low turnout produces a class bias in electoral outcomes. Most studies of participation have found that socio-economic status (SES) is strongly correlated to participation. Education, income, age and sometimes gender are highly significant predictors of whether somebody voted. " [7]. For example, in Switzerland, class bias between the least and most highly educated citizens was 37 percentage points [6]. It's inherently less democratic when a class of people has more influence than another. Key explains the impact: "The blunt truth is that politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote. " [8] Democracy is about the "will of the people" and Compulsory Voting better achieves that will than voluntary voting. Low voter turnout leads to polarization It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that "Research and case studies show that when turnout is low, more-ideological candidates are chosen because the restricted voter pool allots disproportionate influence to more-ideological voters" [9]. Morris Fiorina writes that "But with the prospect of low turnouts, it is the most motivated—and militant—elements at the edges of the ideological spectrum who will receive the most attention. " In a democracy where everyone is inherently equal, we should strive for a system that would call for equal representation and equal attention to everyone. Compulsory Voting better achieves that goal. Also, polarization leads to legislative gridlock. David Jones writes: "party polarization, in conjunction with varying partisan seat arrangements, affects the relative inability of government to enact significant proposals on the policy agenda" [10]. He concludes that "Divided government per se does not cause gridlock. Instead, the results show that higher party polarization increases gridlock. […] On the other hand, divided government is just as productive as unified government when party polarization is low. " Less focus on getting the votes, and more focus on policy This argument is also a clear and a simple one. Joe Garecht writes: "Get out the vote operations (GOTV) can mean the difference between success and defeat on Election Day, especially for the local campaign. GOTV means those operations that your campaign performs to ensure that voters who plan to vote for your candidate go to the polls on Election Day" [11]. For example, in a provincial election in Alberta, Canada, a political scientist says that "the key to victory for the party that wins Tuesday's Alberta election will be its ability to get out the vote" [12]. In other words, the political party or candidate that is more efficient, and more organized has a better chance of representing the people than the other party, even if the people may otherwise prefer the other party. I argue that this is undemocratic. People look for representatives based on their policies and promises, and not based on their organizing skills and ability to get out the vote on election date. The pressure on candidates to Get out the vote significantly puts less funded politicians at a disadvantage as they may not have the capacity to get the vote out compared to other well funded candidates. Compulsory Voting would solve this problem. Educates and engages the public about the political process "Political parties in compulsory voting environments may expend more effort educating voters or countries with compulsory voting may also possess or develop a political culture which encourages greater engagement in politics, or compulsory voting may compel the media to place a greater effort on educating voters. There are, in other words, many plausible mechanisms by which compulsory voting may be associated with increased political engagement" [13]. A study shows that "electoral policies that increase incentives for participation […] will not only increase voter turnout; they will also motivate an increase in the types of political information that are necessary for making a good vote choice" [14]. Having a better understand of the political process suggests that people will make better informed decision when it comes to selecting who should represent them in an election. Thank you. Sources [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.idea.int... [3] . http://www.idea.int... [4] . http://www.idea.int... [5] . http://time.com... [6] . http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu... [7] . http://www.andreasladner.ch... [8] Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press [9] . http://cacs.org... [10] . http://www.baruch.cuny.edu... [11] . http://www.localvictory.com... [12] . http://www.cbc.ca... [13] . http://individual.utoronto.ca... [14] . http://cess.nyu.edu...

negative: It would be beneficial to the nation (USA) to remove the electoral college system. Getting rid of the electoral college system.... Unconstitutional.

negative: Compulsory voting Compulsory voting causes anti-govt feelings.

negative: Trump's Reelection We'll thank you Bsh1 for your insights and your thoughtfulness discussion. So, i guess you were ready for a battle and I'm glad to see this. Let's get this show on the road shell we!!!! Let's talk why and how Donald Trump got where he is today. Because it important to understand why he got to be President before we can go forward on his re-election. You did a good job on the numbers part, so i won't get to much involved there. But it's important to realize who he went against and how the numbers are only part of how he won the Presidential election. Yes Trump won 306 to 232 electoral college votes. And yes when you add all that up he only won barely by 77,780 votes. And he lost the popular vote by over 3 millions. But the popular vote doesn't matter if you could win the electoral college votes. That's what trump did, he won the electoral college votes. If you look more closely this past election has the most votes ever standing at 138,847,000. This also tell us "voting age population (VAP) turnout was 55.5%". (13.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...; This was higher than 2012 election. So people voted this past elections. And trump still won. Now why did he win? Well it pretty simple because he actually went down and dirty. Meaning he went to the swing states and campaign. Unlike his opponent Hillary Clinton she campaign in states where she was already going to win like California and New York. As for Trump he went to "swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, as well as the three "blue wall" stronghold states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin". (14.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Another factor is trump promised changes as for Hillary she didn't promised anything. Hillary didn't challenge trump during their lives debates she didn't say anything meaningful as for trump he promised many, many things and his Republican base brought them. Trump win because a lot of people hated Hillary way more than trump. Trump take full advantage of the attention he was getting, it didn't matter if it was a negative. He turn it to say something meaningful. As for Hillary she just didn't do anything and this hurt her. But now he is in office and it going take a lot to knock him out. People didn't think he would win nevermind doing doing a decent job of being the commander and chief. Now you talk about his approval rating being historically low and this may be true. But i already kinda touch on this in the first round. But i will go though it in more detail now. Can you actually trust these polls or approval ratings? I mean look these polls or approval ratings are a very small sample size when you compare them to the national size. These polls or approval ratings only have like a 1,000 to 10,000 or 100,000 people voted on them. This doesn't mean these polls are correct, when you consider the size of the Nation. These polls most people don't take very seriously. For example look what happened to the Presidential election. Trump took over 62 millions votes. None of theses polls predicted that. The media trying to manipulate these polls and approval ratings to make trump look bad. They try this during the election and what happened? They failed and they are still failing. Another way the media could be manipulating these polls is this way. You have a poll that says do you like trump or you don't like. Then you get only 10 people who voted on this poll. 6 out of 10 say they dislike trump. That would be 60% disliking him. And only 40% liking him. So you could see these polls are very a very small sample. So could you really trust these polling? If you want to have faith in these polls then here one "In October, for example, 44 percent of 2016 voters said they approved of Trump"s performance in office, compared with 37 percent of the general population". (15.) https://www.reuters.com... You want more evidence here "Among Republicans, 82 percent of voters approved of Trump in October, compared with 75 percent of all Republicans". (16.) https://www.reuters.com... Only 15 won two consecutive elections out of 42 men who served as president before the current incumbent. "Among the others, five died during their first terms, seven incumbents declined to run". (17.) https://www.thedailybeast.com... So if you take away the 12 mention then Mr.Trump has a 50% chance to win. Those are pretty good odds. It will obviously matter who he runs against too. I have mentioned in the first round name 5 candidates you think could or should be nominated for the Democratic. This is important, because if you have a candidate like Hillary, trump will win pretty easily. You might be waiting to name these names later in this debate. But i will advise you to name them in the next round. So, i could have a chance to defend my argument better. It would be unfair for me if you name these candidates in your 3th or 4th round, because i would have no way of giving back my responses. Another reason why i think this is important on picking some candidates is this. Only a few candidates have a realistic chance of beating trump or at least giving this next presidential race interesting. The person does matter on who people wanting to vote for. If you give the voter bad choices then you get what happen in 2016. I can only think of two who might be able to beat trump. But the Democratic could failed again on electing them. And give out a poor choice like they did in 2016. You mention that the mid-term election could go toward the Democratic way. And that would have a good insights on who might win the next election. That might be true, but like i said before the person matter more. Not what party or where they came from. People going to vote on the person not the party. So even if the Democratic win this year mid-term election it doesn't guarantee them anything comes 2020. The person who they elect will matter way more. You also mention the Democratic seem more enthusiastic about this coming mid-terms. But i will question again does these new poll numbers really matter anymore? Why do i say this, well i will point to what happen in 2016. All these poll numbers and what ever you wanna add in all suggest Hillary and the Democratic would win. And this didn't happen. It happening again, so how can we be so sure things won't happen the same way as in 2016? Trump new tax plan already a big accomplishment. Here why some bigs company's already putting extra money to their employees. For example, "AT&T, Comcast giving $1,000 bonuses to hundreds of thousands of workers after tax bill". (18.) https://www.cnbc.com... here another company "Walmart to raise its starting wage to $11, give some employees bonuses following tax bill passage". (19.) https://www.cnbc.com... "Apple today announced a new set of investments to build on its commitment to support the American economy and its workforce, concentrated in three areas where Apple has had the greatest impact on job creation". (20.) https://www.apple.com... "Tesla Wants to Build Three More Gigafactories in the United States". (21.) https://www.google.com... This is great news why because the average employees now will have extra money to spend or save. Employees will get extra money that could go right back in the economy. Plus new employees will be employed. So it not just great news for the company, it good for the workforce. So this will help his re-election bid. "Trump won his first term despite record low approval ratings, triumphing over the marginally less unpopular Hillary Clinton. He will probably be able to repeat this feat if necessary". (22.) http://kutv.com... Trump is getting better and better as the President. Rather you like him or not he doing a decent job. Trump"s accomplishments are really just Republican Party accomplishments, and I think that"s the right way to judge him.

negative: Drinking Age Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?

negative: The USFG should abolish the Electoral College Thanks again to Lady4Liberty for engaging in this debate with me, and I hope it's a nice introduction to the site. Now, to start, let's examine what the Electoral College is. The definition I provided for the Electoral College seems so simple and straightforward, doesn't it? Broken down, it means that two things are happening: there's a popular vote, and there's a vote by the Electoral College. These are meant to uphold the basic ideals of a representative democracy, wherein every vote counts. Representatives are present as go-betweens, merely translating the votes of individuals in their states into a smaller but proportional number of votes for the candidate of their choice. Seems great, right? Any system that deals with voting should take on the implement the ideals of a representative democracy. Why? Because the US is a representative democracy, or at least purports to be. A representative democracy "is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy."[1] It's chiefly meant to deal with the realities of really big societies where votes cannot be held among every person every single time there's a new bill up for discussion. Since what we're discussing is what happens every 4 years where a popular vote is taken anyway, this reality isn't a concern here. The voting system in presidential elections is in place not as a side-show, but as a way for citizens to be involved in the electoral process. In order to ensure that people feel that their votes count, we have to ensure the following: a) every citizen can vote and gets adequate representation, b) every vote counts the same, c) any representatives that translate those votes are actually acting in a representative capacity, and d) the result of elections generally matches the popular vote. Any system that fails to implement any of these aspects is fundamentally detrimental to representative democracy. In order to assess these things, I'll begin by exploring the sordid history of the Electoral College. How did it get its start? First off, let's be clear that, while the Founding Fathers established it, they did not have the goals of representative democracy that I stated above in mind. The founders clearly did not want everyone to vote, negating that possibility for anyone who didn't own land, let alone anyone of a different skin color or gender.[2] In total, they awarded just 6% of the population with the ability to vote, something that took many decades to change at all.[3] However, I'm not requiring Con to defend its history, only where it's at currently. So, why spend all of this time on background? Because denying representation and even the vote hasn't stopped. For the former, 650,000 people in DC have no representation in Congress.[4] Still, at least they have electoral votes " Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands aren't so lucky, lacking even that basic impact on elections.[5] As for the latter, we can look to multiple examples, but the most flagrant is disenfranchisement of felons, which entirely bars anyone who was convicted of a felony from ever voting in a U.S. election.[6] This is used regularly to disenfranchise African Americans and other minority groups, basically continuing the long-held tradition of Jim Crow laws that denied so many their basic voting rights.[7, 8] Frankly, all of this is reason enough to abolish the electoral college by itself, but we can go further. Much further. The Electoral College itself IS voter disenfranchisement, at its very core. Many people think that the Electoral College was designed to help small states, and given how it functions today, it's not hard to see how some might view it that way. It's actually helped them quite a bit, to the point that voters in Wyoming have over 3 times the electoral power of voters in California.[9] This means that each voter in Wyoming has 3 times the say of voters in California, which inherently makes the votes of individuals in each state unequal, something we should strive against for a representative democracy. ...But the Electoral College wasn't built to help small states. It was built chiefly to reach across the divide between northern and southern states, and they did this by giving southern states electoral votes equal to their total population. Seems legit, but it wasn't. Slaves made up a great deal of these populations, and slaves couldn't vote, which meant that these electoral votes were actually giving even more representation to a much smaller population on the basis of how many people they owned.[10] But maybe you're thinking that it's still nice that small states are being represented, even if that wasn't the initial intent. However, it really doesn't help small states at all - the winner-take-all system we have in place ensures that candidates will get all of the electoral votes from a given state, and not a proportional number based on actual votes.[11] That means that California, as a state, still has far more say than Wyoming, but it's not the STATES that we want representation for. It's the people. And this winner-takes-all system fundamentally deprives anyone who doesn't agree with the majority political views of their state. If you live in a "blue" or "red" state, and you align with Republicans or Democrats, respectively, then your vote doesn't matter. This amounts to millions of voters across multiple states who are completely unrepresented by the Electoral College.[12] And, if you live in one of these states that's already assumed to go "blue" or "red", you have no impact on the outcome anyway. In some cases, independent candidates will take a state, siphoning every electoral vote away from other candidates.[13] Swing states are the only ones that end up making any difference in an election because these other states will rarely, if ever, shift. That means that 80% of the votes cast in America have no impact on the outcome of an election.[14] But maybe you're still satisfied with the system. This is a representative democracy, we need representatives. The Electoral College may not be solidly built, but at least the electors themselves are fine, upstanding individuals, right? Not quite. Electors aren't elected - they're nominated by their political parties, and have little to no accountability to voters. In most states, the electors can vote for whoever they want, without any regard for how the general population of their states voted.[15] That's happened over 80 times, and worse yet, it sometimes results in absolute nonsense votes for people like "John Ewards", who was almost John Kerry's running mate, in 2004.[16] But all of this only sounds terrible, right? It hasn't borne out in any elections, right? Actually, it's happened as many as 5 times, most recently in 2000.[17] And if votes ever result in no candidate receiving a majority of the electoral vote (which, thankfully, hasn't happened yet), then the House of Representatives chooses the president. That also sounds good, except that each state receives one vote. That means that the 7 smallest states, with a population of roughly 4.9 million, can outvote the 6 largest states, with a population of 119 million.[18] There are so many better ways to do this than to stick with the Electoral College, though I'm going to propose one: The USFG should implement a voting system whereby presidential candidates are elected by direct popular vote, which would be open to everyone over the age of 18. In instances where no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, runoffs will be held between the top 2 finishers. A representative democracy should be representing the voters as well as possible, which requires that the voters have direct say in who's representing us. For this to happen, we need to completely remove the current system in order to put it behind us. We have to leave any trace of the system we have, which employs unelected and unaccountable individuals to make our decisions for us, behind to ensure that the mistakes of its history do not perpetuate themselves. But the pursuit of representative democracy isn't just beneficial because it's something our government is supposed to support. The realities of the Electoral College system lead to apathy, mainly because people feel distanced from the impact of their votes. It's not surprising at all tht more than 60% of people don't vote in this country, and that even more young people are eschewing the practice. We're an international embarrassment for our voter turnout.[19] It's not surprising, as I've pointed out that the vast majority of voters might as well not even show up due to the Electoral College system. If you're in a swing state, then congratulations, you're getting all of the attention during the election season. For the rest of the US, there's almost no reason to turn out. The large electorate can also feel impersonal, but at least under my system every vote actually counts towards the end result. That invests people in the process, making them more likely to research the candidates and turn out for the vote, thus furthering our democracy. With that, I hand the debate over to Con. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://1.usa.gov... 3. http://bit.ly... 4. http://1.usa.gov... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://thebea.st... 8. http://nyti.ms... 9. http://nyti.ms... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://1.usa.gov... 12. http://1.usa.gov... 13. http://bit.ly... 14. http://1.usa.gov... 15. http://1.usa.gov... 16. http://onforb.es... 17. http://bit.ly... 18. http://bit.ly... 19. http://bit.ly...

negative: Raising the legal age for drinking alcohol to 18+ is no solution 'Raising the legal age for drinking alcohol to 18+ is no solution.'

negative: marriage age should be lowered Here is the format we will do it in: round 2: Arguments round 3: Rebuttals of arguments round 4: Rebuttals of rebuttals (If any. Forfeit allowed) round 5: Conclusion

negative: Prisoners right to vote Only qualified citizens have a right to vote

negative: On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process 1.Corporate control causes undue corporate influence over the election process. This argument is contextualized by Peter Rothberg in a piece published in The Nation: Peter Rothberg, "The Story of 'Citizens United' vs. the FEC," The Nation, March 2, 2011. And the results of the 2010 election bore out progressive fears as corporate-front groups flooded the electoral zone with massive contributions to reactionary Tea Party candidates. In fact, as Leonard's film makes clear, the kind of independent groups that corporations are now allowed to support spent $300 million to influence the 2010 midterm elections, more than every midterm election since 1990 combined. This is a persuasive "pro" statistic -- it illustrates the extent to which the election financing landscape is shifting. This seems to support the notion that election politics are changing due to the ruling, which is a basic argument but also one which the pro will need to support persuasively in order to win internal links to many of their "practical concerns outweigh theoretical rights" arguments. 2.Citizens United causes political cynicism and apathy. There are several persuasive arguments for this claim. Jeffrey Rosen outlines one in Politico: Jeffrey Rosen, "Citizens United v. FEC decision proves justice is blind " politically," Politico, January 25, 2012. The 5-4 majority decision in Citizens United, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was remarkable for its combination of judicial overconfidence and political cluelessness " the most blinkered sentence in the opinion was surely Kennedy"s sonorous prediction that the "appearance of influence or access" by corporations on the political process "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Kennedy"s prediction has proved dramatically wrong. The Citizens United decision unleashed super PACs, the now ubiquitous corporate-funded groups that spent more than $300 million during the 2010 midterm elections. This massive increase in corporate spending led to a spike in political cynicism " ." This argument is common and relatively basic: the idea that people will become increasingly cynical about the political process if they believe that their elected officials are, in essence, controlled by corporations with access to more capital than they could ever reasonably hope to acquire. This is devastating to democracy because democracy only works when people believe their opinions count and are being represented. A deluge of corporate funding creates the perception (correct or not) that politicians aren"t interested in the average voter"s opinion and that their vote may not count. Rob Goodman and Jimmy Soni, in an interesting article comparing political spending unleashed by Citizens United to the deluge of campaign spending that imperiled the Roman Republic, explain that this process is particularly insidious because it"s not necessarily about actual corporate influence; it"s about the appearance of influence. Thus, even if the con wins arguments that the statistical incidence of actual money-contribution is low or insignificant, the perception is that the electoral process has been compromised. Rob Goodman and Jimmy Soni, "How Political Campaign Spending Brought Down the Roman Republic," Slate, November 26, 2012. How much democratic faith do Americans have today? How many liberals think George W. Bush won in 2004 because of electronic voting shenanigans in Ohio? How many conservatives think Barack Obama won in 2008 thanks to ACORN, or in 2012 because of handouts to the 47 percent? Unlimited money in politics adds one more cause for doubt, perhaps the most powerful of all, to a list that has grown in recent years. How long until we have a presidential election in which a dangerous percentage of Americans view the final result as illegitimate on account of money? On some level, Citizens United was right. It"s not bought influence that"s deadliest to our politics"it"s the appearance of influence. We can debate dueling First Amendment readings and the real power of super PACs all we"d like; but here is a case where public opinion, on its own, should be decisive. If a loss of faith becomes wide and deep enough, the question of whether or not we are right to lose faith becomes academic. The loss is destructive either way. Just ask Rome. Further, recent events prove that faith in democracy is at a relative low in the United States. Citizens United could possibly be the straw to break the camel"s back. The impact, as they describe in the article, is potentially widespread. As in Rome, those convinced of the illegitimacy of a candidate are unlikely to respect the authority of government, up to and including engaging in civil war. This is, of course, an extreme case, but (at least according to the authors) not one without historical precedent. 3. Citizens United allows corporations to spend peoples" money on causes with which they may not agree. David Kairys, "Money Isn"t Speech and Corporations Aren"t People," Slate Magazine, January 22, 2010. In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy discusses business corporations as if they were clubs or political associations with political viewpoints and elected leaders. But corporate managers don't function as representatives or employees of shareholders, who have no say, no shared political views, and no expectation that their investments will be used for political ends ". Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers. Government has enabled corporate managers to control huge accumulations of wealth without any personal risk"an arrangement that contributes to wild, bubble-producing economic swings and collapses. Citizens United invites that arrangement directly into politics and elections. This is another interesting argument " that the Citizens United decision: 1.Allows corporations to make political statements using investor money without their knowledge. With the decision, a liberal person could theoretically invest in a conservative company and have their cash fund ads advocating policies with which they disagree. Additionally, since there are no requirements for those expenditures to be reported, the investor may never know. 2.This empowers corporate managers to use money that isn"t their own to make their own political statements. This gives some individuals a disproportionate amount of risk-free power to influence policy (which is not so democratic, considering the average citizen needs to spend their own money to engage politically, not investors"). 4. Citizens United potentially allows undue foreign influence in U.S. elections. Along similar lines to the shareholder argument is another issue highlighted by Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post, Jason Linkins, "The Supreme Court"s Citizens United Decision is Terrifying," Huffington Post, March 23, 2010. A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States. " I'm not trying to stoke zero-sum xenophobia, here. The idea of foreign persons or entities seizing -- by judicial fiat -- such a dramatic advantage in terms of influence over the American people seems to me to be, as they say, less than ideal. An important underpinning of democracy is the idea that citizens should have control over the matters that concern them in their homeland. Individuals outside a country should, theoretically, not share that control because issues that concern individuals in one country may not concern another. In point, if a company owned by a foreign entity would benefit from laws that would allow them to dump waste, damaging the local environment, they could easily lobby for those laws because they wouldn"t have to live with the aftermath. Democracy is about self-government and individuals should have a say in laws because they affect them. Citizens United opens the door to foreign entities participating in the U.S. political process by allowing corporations free speech rights. Those with foreign investors could theoretically influence the election, which Linkins argues is destructive to democracy for the reasons above. 5. "Corporate personhood" is a bad and dangerous standard to apply to U.S. jurisprudence. David Kairys explains, David Kairys, "Money Isn"t Speech and Corporations Aren"t People," Slate Magazine, January 22, 2010. The other basic theory supporting the ruling in Citizens United"the court's claim that, for some purposes, corporations are constitutionally, if not actually, people"comes out of the long history of the development of corporations. But the extension of corporate personhood to campaign speech is a controversial innovation of the conservative justices over the last few decades. Corporations needed some rights usually reserved for people to function as legal entities, so that they could, for instance, make enforceable contracts and sue or be sued. But despite the common cultural personification of corporations"we can easily say "GM was embarrassed today""they obviously don't and shouldn't have all the rights of people. For example, they don't have the right to vote. Kairys is arguing that the personhood principle is fairly nonsensical because corporations do not and should not have the right to vote, therefore it"s illogical to allow them meaningful participation in elections. Rather, their rights should be limited to only those that are necessary for their functioning as legal entities and for consumer protection. An article in The Nation expands upon this premise, arguing that: The Nation, "Democracy Inc.," February 15, 2010. By awarding to corporations the rights of citizens when it comes to electioneering, the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission goes against the intent and understanding of founders like Chief Justice John Marshall, who referred to the corporation as an "artificial being, invisible, intangible"; and Thomas Jefferson, who warned almost two centuries ago that America must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke as a strict constructionist when she declared during oral hearings on the case that "a corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights." Unfortunately, the majority dismissed Ginsburg's wise counsel and issued what Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, correctly characterized as a "lawless" decision. President Obama was right on point when he said, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections." The High Court's rejection of the ban on direct political spending by businesses, industry associations and their surrogates, and of limits on the amount of money they may spend on campaigning, sets up a dystopia in which our elections--including this year's critical Congressional and state contests--could become little more than Super Bowl games, with corporations spending whatever it takes to sell their products, er, candidates. This argument goes beyond indicting the mere logic of corporate personhood and explains the consequences of a broad application of this principle " namely that corporate personhood can cause class divisions and effectively disenfranchise citizens (particularly the poor) while insulating corporations from the consequences of their actions. 6. Citizens United advances a problematic vision of free speech that doesn"t adequately account for practical harm. There are some persuasive arguments against the claim made by Citizens United advocates that the Court"s interpretation of free speech is necessary to preserve the integrity of free speech as a whole. The first, a balancing test advanced by McCain and Whitehouse, argues that there is a need to balance practicality against legal theory. Robert Barnes explains, Robert Barnes, "Supreme Court faces pressure to reconsider Citizens United ruling," Washington Post, May 20, 2012. Those urging the court to grant a full hearing of the Montana case take aim at the most important finding of Citizens United. That was the declaration in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy"s majority opinion that "we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." "That cannot be so," the new bipartisan team of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told the court. "Whether independent expenditures pose dangers of corruption or apparent corruption depends on the actual workings of the electoral system; it is a factual question, not a legal syllogism." The court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has incrementally undermined McCain"s landmark campaign finance act by saying it doesn"t meet First Amendment requirements. McCain has in turn been dismissive of a court " without a single member who has ever run for public office " that he says is hopelessly naive about how campaign finance affects the political process. The Senators are arguing that the court has weighed a version of free speech that is highly theoretical against the practical problem of runaway campaign finance. In theoretical terms, free speech clearly wins out because the thought of any restrictions snowballing out of control is distasteful to anyone who believes in free speech. In practical terms, however, the impact of restrictions on speech is actually so constraining on the free flow of political discourse (and so distorting to elections) that it should be prevented. The theory versus practice question is a critical issue to be explored in this debate. 7. Limits on speech are necessary and good. David Kairys continues, arguing that practical limits on speech often make sense and don"t spill over to destroy the premise of free speech more broadly: David Kairys, "Money Isn"t Speech and Corporations Aren"t People," Slate Magazine, January 22, 2010. But some perspective: We limit speech"when it has nothing to do with wealthy people spending money"in many ways. (It wasn't protected at all until the mid-1930s.) You famously can't shout fire in a theater. You not-so-famously can't break the theater's rules, including rules about speaking, because you don't really have any First Amendment rights in a privately owned theater or at work. The First Amendment limits only government. And even where it is fully protected, free speech has not been absolute; it's subject to regulation when it undermines basic societal interests and functions, like voting and democracy. In the last few decades, the conservative justices dominating the court have also limited speech rights for demonstrators, students, and whistle blowers. They have restricted speech at shopping malls and transit terminals. Taken as a whole, the conservative court's First Amendment jurisprudence has enlarged the speech rights available to wealthy people and corporations and restricted the speech rights available to people of ordinary means and to dissenters.

negative: Lower The Drinking Age I say lower the drinking age....why not?...society tells peaple that there adults at 18...and at 18 you can pretty much do anything...so why not be able to drink a beer?...Peaple act like it will ruin the kids life if he/she was to be legally ably to frink at 18...I say they cant use that as an exuse cause if a person is going to become an alchoholic they would be one anyway whatever the drinking age is...and plus...I dont see how 2 13 your olds are legally allowed to have sex but 2 18 year olds who drive,out of school,"ARE ADULT" can't open a beer and be able to drink it?...there are WAY to many teen pregnancys to start preaching about 2 "adults" drinking beer..so if teens are allowed to sleep with each other....then adults should be allowed to buy alcholhol

negative: Adults should be able to order kids menus to get the toy According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It's got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! - Ever see pollination up close? - No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It's a little bit of magic. That's amazing. Why do we do that? That's pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I'm picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don't we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You're reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don't know, but I'm loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It's a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! - Guys! - This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama's little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don't think these are flowers. - Should we tell him? - I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you're about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There's a bee in the car! - Do something! - I'm driving! - Hi, bee. - He's back here! He's going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don't move, he won't sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow... the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don't need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This... Drapes! That is diabolical. It's fantastic. It's got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What's number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don't go for that... ...kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn't talk to them. They're out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they're flabbergasted, can't believe what I say. There's the sun. Maybe that's a way out. I don't remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don't kill him! You know I'm allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I'm just saying all life has value. You don't know what he's capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I'm not scared of him. It's an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. - Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? - Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. - You could put carob chips on there. - Bye. - Supposed to be less calories. - Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It's a bee law. You're not supposed to talk to a human. I can't believe I'm doing this. I've got to. Oh, I can't do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can't. How should I start it? "You like jazz?" No, that's no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I'm sorry. - You're talking. - Yes, I know. You're talking! I'm so sorry. No, it's OK. It's fine. I know I'm dreaming. But I don't recall going to bed. Well, I'm sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you're a bee! I am. And I'm not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn't for you... I had to thank you. It's just how I was raised. That was a little weird. - I'm talking with a bee. - Yeah. I'm talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I'm grateful. I'll leave now. - Wait! How did you learn to do that? - What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. "Mama, Dada, honey." You pick it up. - That's very funny. - Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway... Oan I... ...get you something? - Like what? I don't know. I mean... I don't know. Ooffee? I don't want to put you out. It's no trouble. It takes two minutes. - It's just coffee. - I hate to impose. - Don't be ridiculous! - Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? - I shouldn't. - Have some. - No, I can't. - Oome on! I'm trying to lose a couple micrograms. - Where? - These stripes don't help. You look great! I don't know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He's making the tie in the cab as they're flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, "Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?" Is that a bee joke? That's the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don't know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can't do it the way they want. I know how you feel. - You do? - Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. - Really? - My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look... There's my hive right there. See it? You're in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I'm right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. - Why do girls put rings on their toes? - Why not? - It's like putting a hat on your knee. - Maybe I'll try that. - You all right, ma'am? - Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it's no trouble. Sorry I couldn't finish it. If I did, I'd be up the rest of my life. Are you...? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. - Thanks! - Yeah. All right. Well, then... I guess I'll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again... for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but... Anyway... This can't possibly work. He's all set to go. We may as well try it. OK, Dave, pull the chute. - Sounds amazing. - It was amazing! It was the scariest, happiest moment of my life. Humans! I can't believe you were with humans! Giant, scary humans! What were they like? Huge and crazy. They talk crazy. They eat crazy giant things. They drive crazy. - Do they try and kill you, like on TV? - Some of them. But some of them don't. - How'd you get back? - Poodle. You did it, and I'm glad. You saw whatever you wanted to see. You had your "experience." Now you can pick out yourjob and be normal. - Well... - Well? Well, I met someone. You did? Was she Bee-ish? - A wasp?! Your parents will kill you! - No, no, no, not a wasp. - Spider? - I'm not attracted to spiders. I know it's the hottest thing, with the eight legs and all. I can't get by that face. So who is she? She's... human. No, no. That's a bee law. You wouldn't break a bee law. - Her name's Vanessa. - Oh, boy. She's so nice. And she's a florist! Oh, no! You're dating a human florist! We're not dating. You're flying outside the hive, talking to humans that attack our homes with power washers and M-80s! One-eighth a stick of dynamite! She saved my life! And she understands me. This is over! Eat this. This is not over! What was that? - They call it a crumb. - It was so stingin' stripey! And that's not what they eat. That's what falls off what they eat! - You know what a Oinnabon is? - No. It's bread and cinnamon and frosting. They heat it up... Sit down! ...really hot! - Listen to me! We are not them! We're us. There's us and there's them! Yes, but who can deny the heart that is yearning? There's no yearning. Stop yearning. Listen to me! You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. Thinking bee! - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! There he is. He's in the pool. You know what your problem is, Barry? I gotta start thinking bee? How much longer will this go on? It's been three days! Why aren't you working? I've got a lot of big life decisions to think about. What life? You have no life! You have no job. You're barely a bee! Would it kill you to make a little honey? Barry, come out. Your father's talking to you. Martin, would you talk to him? Barry, I'm talking to you! You coming? Got everything? All set! Go ahead. I'll catch up. Don't be too long. Watch this! Vanessa! - We're still here. - I told you not to yell at him. He doesn't respond to yelling! - Then why yell at me? - Because you don't listen! I'm not listening to this. Sorry, I've gotta go. - Where are you going? - I'm meeting a friend. A girl? Is this why you can't decide? Bye. I just hope she's Bee-ish. They have a huge parade of flowers every year in Pasadena? To be in the Tournament of Roses, that's every florist's dream! Up on a float, surrounded by flowers, crowds cheering. A tournament. Do the roses compete in athletic events? No. All right, I've got one. How come you don't fly everywhere? It's exhausting. Why don't you run everywhere? It's faster. Yeah, OK, I see, I see. All right, your turn. TiVo. You can just freeze live TV? That's insane! You don't have that? We have Hivo, but it's a disease. It's a horrible, horrible disease. Oh, my. Dumb bees! You must want to sting all those jerks. We try not to sting. It's usually fatal for us. So you have to watch your temper. Very carefully. You kick a wall, take a walk, write an angry letter and throw it out. Work through it like any emotion: Anger, jealousy, lust. Oh, my goodness! Are you OK? Yeah. - What is wrong with you?! - It's a bug. He's not bothering anybody. Get out of here, you creep! What was that? A Pic 'N' Save circular? Yeah, it was. How did you know? It felt like about 10 pages. Seventy-five is pretty much our limit. You've really got that down to a science. - I lost a cousin to Italian Vogue. - I'll bet. What in the name of Mighty Hercules is this? How did this get here? Oute Bee, Golden Blossom, Ray Liotta Private Select? - Is he that actor? - I never heard of him. - Why is this here? - For people. We eat it. You don't have enough food of your own? - Well, yes. - How do you get it? - Bees make it. - I know who makes it! And it's hard to make it! There's heating, cooling, stirring. You need a whole Krelman thing! - It's organic. - It's our-ganic! It's just honey, Barry. Just what?! Bees don't know about this! This is stealing! A lot of stealing! You've taken our homes, schools, hospitals! This is all we have! And it's on sale?! I'm getting to the bottom of this. I'm getting to the bottom of all of this! Hey, Hector. - You almost done? - Almost. He is here. I sense it. Well, I guess I'll go home now and just leave this nice honey out, with no one around. You're busted, box boy! I knew I heard something. So you can talk! I can talk. And now you'll start talking! Where you getting the sweet stuff? Who's your supplier? I don't understand. I thought we were friends. The last thing we want to do is upset bees! You're too late! It's ours now! You, sir, have crossed the wrong sword! You, sir, will be lunch for my iguana, Ignacio! Where is the honey coming from? Tell me where! Honey Farms! It comes from Honey Farms! Orazy person! What horrible thing has happened here? These faces, they never knew what hit them. And now they're on the road to nowhere! Just keep still. What? You're not dead? Do I look dead? They will wipe anything that moves. Where you headed? To Honey Farms. I am onto something huge here. I'm going to Alaska. Moose blood, crazy stuff. Blows your head off! I'm going to Tacoma. - And you? - He really is dead. All right. Uh-oh! - What is that?! - Oh, no! - A wiper! Triple blade! - Triple blade? Jump on! It's your only chance, bee! Why does everything have to be so doggone clean?! How much do you people need to see?! Open your eyes! Stick your head out the window! From NPR News in Washington, I'm Oarl Kasell. But don't kill no more bugs! - Bee! - Moose blood guy!! - You hear something? - Like what? Like tiny screaming. Turn off the radio. Whassup, bee boy? Hey, Blood. Just a row of honey jars, as far as the eye could see. Wow! I assume wherever this truck goes is where they're getting it. I mean, that honey's ours. - Bees hang tight. - We're all jammed in. It's a close community. Not us, man. We on our own. Every mosquito on his own. - What if you get in trouble? - You a mosquito, you in trouble. Nobody likes us. They just smack. See a mosquito, smack, smack! At least you're out in the world. You must meet girls. Mosquito girls try to trade up, get with a moth, dragonfly. Mosquito girl don't want no mosquito. You got to be kidding me! Mooseblood's about to leave the building! So long, bee! - Hey, guys! - Mooseblood! I knew I'd catch y'all down here. Did you bring your crazy straw? We throw it in jars, slap a label on it, and it's pretty much pure profit. What is this place? A bee's got a brain the size of a pinhead. They are pinheads! Pinhead. - Oheck out the new smoker. - Oh, sweet. That's the one you want. The Thomas 3000! Smoker? Ninety puffs a minute, semi-automatic. Twice the nicotine, all the tar. A couple breaths of this knocks them right out. They make the honey, and we make the money. "They make the honey, and we make the money"? Oh, my! What's going on? Are you OK? Yeah. It doesn't last too long. Do you know you're in a fake hive with fake walls? Our queen was moved here. We had no choice. This is your queen? That's a man in women's clothes! That's a drag queen! What is this? Oh, no! There's hundreds of them! Bee honey. Our honey is being brazenly stolen on a massive scale! This is worse than anything bears have done! I intend to do something. Oh, Barry, stop. Who told you humans are taking our honey? That's a rumor. Do these look like rumors? That's a conspiracy theory. These are obviously doctored photos. How did you get mixed up in this? He's been talking to humans. - What? - Talking to humans?! He has a human girlfriend. And they make out! Make out? Barry! We do not. - You wish you could. - Whose side are you on? The bees! I dated a cricket once in San Antonio. Those crazy legs kept me up all night. Barry, this is what you want to do with your life? I want to do it for all our lives. Nobody works harder than bees! Dad, I remember you coming home so overworked your hands were still stirring. You couldn't stop. I remember that. What right do they have to our honey? We live on two cups a year. They put it in lip balm for no reason whatsoever! Even if it's true, what can one bee do? Sting them where it really hurts. In the face! The eye! - That would hurt. - No. Up the nose? That's a killer. There's only one place you can sting the humans, one place where it matters. Hive at Five, the hive's only full-hour action news source. No more bee beards! With Bob Bumble at the anchor desk. Weather with Storm Stinger. Sports with Buzz Larvi. And Jeanette Ohung. - Good evening. I'm Bob Bumble. - And I'm Jeanette Ohung. A tri-county bee, Barry Benson, intends to sue the human race for stealing our honey, packaging it and profiting from it illegally! Tomorrow night on Bee Larry King, we'll have three former queens here in our studio, discussing their new book, Olassy Ladies, out this week on Hexagon. Tonight we're talking to Barry Benson. Did you ever think, "I'm a kid from the hive. I can't do this"? Bees have never been afraid to change the world. What about Bee Oolumbus? Bee Gandhi? Bejesus? Where I'm from, we'd never sue humans. We were thinking of stickball or candy stores. How old are you? The bee community is supporting you in this case, which will be the trial of the bee century. You know, they have a Larry King in the human world too. It's a common name. Next week... He looks like you and has a show and suspenders and colored dots... Next week... Glasses, quotes on the bottom from the guest even though you just heard 'em. Bear Week next week! They're scary, hairy and here live. Always leans forward, pointy shoulders, squinty eyes, very Jewish. In tennis, you attack at the point of weakness! It was my grandmother, Ken. She's 81. Honey, her backhand's a joke! I'm not gonna take advantage of that? Quiet, please. Actual work going on here. - Is that that same bee? - Yes, it is! I'm helping him sue the human race. - Hello. - Hello, bee. This is Ken. Yeah, I remember you. Timberland, size ten and a half. Vibram sole, I believe. Why does he talk again? Listen, you better go 'cause we're really busy working. But it's our yogurt night! Bye-bye. Why is yogurt night so difficult?! You poor thing. You two have been at this for hours! Yes, and Adam here has been a huge help. - Frosting... - How many sugars? Just one. I try not to use the competition. So why are you helping me? Bees have good qualities. And it takes my mind off the shop. Instead of flowers, people are giving balloon bouquets now. Those are great, if you're three. And artificial flowers. - Oh, those just get me psychotic! - Yeah, me too. Bent stingers, pointless pollination. Bees must hate those fake things! Nothing worse than a daffodil that's had work done. Maybe this could make up for it a little bit. - This lawsuit's a pretty big deal. - I guess. You sure you want to go through with it? Am I sure? When I'm done with the humans, they won't be able to say, "Honey, I'm home," without paying a royalty! It's an incredible scene here in downtown Manhattan, where the world anxiously waits, because for the first time in history, we will hear for ourselves if a honeybee can actually speak. What have we gotten into here, Barry? It's pretty big, isn't it? I can't believe how many humans don't work during the day. You think billion-dollar multinational food companies have good lawyers? Everybody needs to stay behind the barricade. - What's the matter? - I don't know, I just got a chill. Well, if it isn't the bee team. You boys work on this? All rise! The Honorable Judge Bumbleton presiding. All right. Oase number 4475, Superior Oourt of New York, Barry Bee Benson v. the Honey Industry is now in session. Mr. Montgomery, you're representing the five food companies collectively? A privilege. Mr. Benson... you're representing all the bees of the world? I'm kidding. Yes, Your Honor, we're ready to proceed. Mr. Montgomery, your opening statement, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman. Born on a farm, she believed it was man's divine right to benefit from the bounty of nature God put before us. If we lived in the topsy-turvy world Mr. Benson imagines, just think of what would it mean. I would have to negotiate with the silkworm for the elastic in my britches! Talking bee! How do we know this isn't some sort of holographic motion-picture-capture Hollywood wizardry? They could be using laser beams! Robotics! Ventriloquism! Oloning! For all we know, he could be on steroids! Mr. Benson? Ladies and gentlemen, there's no trickery here. I'm just an ordinary bee. Honey's pretty important to me. It's important to all bees. We invented it! We make it. And we protect it with our lives. Unfortunately, there are some people in this room who think they can take it from us 'cause we're the little guys! I'm hoping that, after this is all over, you'll see how, by taking our honey, you not only take everything we have but everything we are! I wish he'd dress like that all the time. So nice! Oall your first witness. So, Mr. Klauss Vanderhayden of Honey Farms, big company you have. I suppose so. I see you also own Honeyburton and Honron! Yes, they provide beekeepers for our farms. Beekeeper. I find that to be a very disturbing term. I don't imagine you employ any bee-free-ers, do you? - No. - I couldn't hear you. - No. - No. Because you don't free bees. You keep bees. Not only that, it seems you thought a bear would be an appropriate image for a jar of honey. They're very lovable creatures. Yogi Bear, Fozzie Bear, Build-A-Bear. You mean like this? Bears kill bees! How'd you like his head crashing through your living room?! Biting into your couch! Spitting out your throw pillows! OK, that's enough. Take him away. So, Mr. Sting, thank you for being here. Your name intrigues me. - Where have I heard it before? - I was with a band called The Police. But you've never been a police officer, have you? No, I haven't. No, you haven't. And so here we have yet another example of bee culture casually stolen by a human for nothing more than a prance-about stage name. Oh, please. Have you ever been stung, Mr. Sting? Because I'm feeling a little stung, Sting. Or should I say... Mr. Gordon M. Sumner! That's not his real name?! You idiots! Mr. Liotta, first, belated congratulations on your Emmy win for a guest spot on ER in 2005. Thank you. Thank you. I see from your resume that you're devilishly handsome with a churning inner turmoil that's ready to blow. I enjoy what I do. Is that a crime? Not yet it isn't. But is this what it's come to for you? Exploiting tiny, helpless bees so you don't have to rehearse your part and learn your lines, sir? Watch it, Benson! I could blow right now! This isn't a goodfella. This is a badfella! Why doesn't someone just step on this creep, and we can all go home?! - Order in this court! - You're all thinking it! Order! Order, I say! - Say it! - Mr. Liotta, please sit down! I think it was awfully nice of that bear to pitch in like that. I think the jury's on our side. Are we doing everything right, legally? I'm a florist. Right. Well, here's to a great team. To a great team! Well, hello. - Ken! - Hello. I didn't think you were coming. No, I was just late. I tried to call, but... the battery. I didn't want all this to go to waste, so I called Barry. Luckily, he was free. Oh, that was lucky. There's a little left. I could heat it up. Yeah, heat it up, sure, whatever. So I hear you're quite a tennis player. I'm not much for the game myself. The ball's a little grabby. That's where I usually sit. Right... there. Ken, Barry was looking at your resume, and he agreed with me that eating with chopsticks isn't really a special skill. You think I don't see what you're doing? I know how hard it is to find the rightjob. We have that in common. Do we? Bees have 100 percent employment, but we do jobs like taking the crud out. That's just what I was thinking about doing. Ken, I let Barry borrow your razor for his fuzz. I hope that was all right. I'm going to drain the old stinger. Yeah, you do that. Look at that. You know, I've just about had it with your little mind games. - What's that? - Italian Vogue. Mamma mia, that's a lot of pages. A lot of ads. Remember what Van said, why is your life more valuable than mine? Funny, I just can't seem to recall that! I think something stinks in here! I love the smell of flowers. How do you like the smell of flames?! Not as much. Water bug! Not taking sides! Ken, I'm wearing a Ohapstick hat! This is pathetic! I've got issues! Well, well, well, a royal flush! - You're bluffing. - Am I? Surf's up, dude! Poo water! That bowl is gnarly. Except for those dirty yellow rings! Kenneth! What are you doing?! You know, I don't even like honey! I don't eat it! We need to talk! He's just a little bee! And he happens to be the nicest bee I've met in a long time! Long time? What are you talking about?! Are there other bugs in your life? No, but there are other things bugging me in life. And you're one of them! Fine! Talking bees, no yogurt night... My nerves are fried from riding on this emotional roller coaster! Goodbye, Ken. And for your information, I prefer sugar-free, artificial sweeteners made by man! I'm sorry about all that. I know it's got an aftertaste! I like it! I always felt there was some kind of barrier between Ken and me. I couldn't overcome it. Oh, well. Are you OK for the trial? I believe Mr. Montgomery is about out of ideas. We would like to call Mr. Barry Benson Bee to the stand. Good idea! You can really see why he's considered one of the best lawyers... Yeah. Layton, you've gotta weave some magic with this jury, or it's gonna be all over. Don't worry. The only thing I have to do to turn this jury around is to remind them of what they don't like about bees. - You got the tweezers? - Are you allergic? Only to losing, son. Only to losing. Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think we'd all like to know. What exactly is your relationship to that woman? We're friends. - Good friends? - Yes. How good? Do you live together? Wait a minute... Are you her little... ...bedbug? I've seen a bee documentary or two. From what I understand, doesn't your queen give birth to all the bee children? - Yeah, but... - So those aren't your real parents! - Oh, Barry... - Yes, they are! Hold me back! You're an illegitimate bee, aren't you, Benson? He's denouncing bees! Don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection! - I'm going to pincushion this guy! Adam, don't! It's what he wants! Oh, I'm hit!! Oh, lordy, I am hit! Order! Order! The venom! The venom is coursing through my veins! I have been felled by a winged beast of destruction! You see? You can't treat them like equals! They're striped savages! Stinging's the only thing they know! It's their way! - Adam, stay with me. - I can't feel my legs. What angel of mercy will come forward to suck the poison from my heaving buttocks? I will have order in this court. Order! Order, please! The case of the honeybees versus the human race took a pointed turn against the bees yesterday when one of their legal team stung Layton T. Montgomery. - Hey, buddy. - Hey. - Is there much pain? - Yeah. I... I blew the whole case, didn't I? It doesn't matter. What matters is you're alive. You could have died. I'd be better off dead. Look at me. They got it from the cafeteria downstairs, in a tuna sandwich. Look, there's a little celery still on it. What was it like to sting someone? I can't explain it. It was all... All adrenaline and then... and then ecstasy! All right. You think it was all a trap? Of course. I'm sorry. I flew us right into this. What were we thinking? Look at us. We're just a couple of bugs in this world. What will the humans do to us if they win? I don't know. I hear they put the roaches in motels. That doesn't sound so bad. Adam, they check in, but they don't check out! Oh, my. Oould you get a nurse to close that window? - Why? - The smoke. Bees don't smoke. Right. Bees don't smoke. Bees don't smoke! But some bees are smoking. That's it! That's our case! It is? It's not over? Get dressed. I've gotta go somewhere. Get back to the court and stall. Stall any way you can. And assuming you've done step correctly, you're ready for the tub. Mr. Flayman. Yes? Yes, Your Honor! Where is the rest of your team? Well, Your Honor, it's interesting. Bees are trained to fly haphazardly, and as a result, we don't make very good time. I actually heard a funny story about... Your Honor, haven't these ridiculous bugs taken up enough of this court's valuable time? How much longer will we allow these absurd shenanigans to go on? They have presented no compelling evidence to support their charges against my clients, who run legitimate businesses. I move for a complete dismissal of this entire case! Mr. Flayman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider Mr. Montgomery's motion. But you can't! We have a terrific case. Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Show me the smoking gun! Hold it, Your Honor! You want a smoking gun? Here is your smoking gun. What is that? It's a bee smoker! What, this? This harmless little contraption? This couldn't hurt a fly, let alone a bee. Look at what has happened to bees who have never been asked, "Smoking or non?" Is this what nature intended for us? To be forcibly addicted to smoke machines and man-made wooden slat work camps? Living out our lives as honey slaves to the white man? - What are we gonna do? - He's playing the species card. Ladies and gentlemen, please, free these bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! The court finds in favor of the bees! Vanessa, we won! I knew you could do it! High-five! Sorry. I'm OK! You know what this means? All the honey will finally belong to the bees. Now we won't have to work so hard all the time. This is an unholy perversion of the balance of nature, Benson. You'll regret this. Barry, how much honey is out there? All right. One at a time. Barry, who are you wearing? My sweater is Ralph Lauren, and I have no pants. - What if Montgomery's right? - What do you mean? We've been living the bee way a long time, 27 million years. Oongratulations on your victory. What will you demand as a settlement? First, we'll demand a complete shutdown of all bee work camps. Then we want back the honey that was ours to begin with, every last drop. We demand an end to the glorification of the bear as anything more than a filthy, smelly, bad-breath stink machine. We're all aware of what they do in the woods. Wait for my signal. Take him out. He'll have nauseous for a few hours, then he'll be fine. And we will no longer tolerate bee-negative nicknames... But it's just a prance-about stage name! ...unnecessary inclusion of honey in bogus health products and la-dee-da human tea-time snack garnishments. Oan't breathe. Bring it in, boys! Hold it right there! Good. Tap it. Mr. Buzzwell, we just passed three cups, and there's gallons more coming! - I think we need to shut down! - Shut down? We've never shut down. Shut down honey production! Stop making honey! Turn your key, sir! What do we do now? Oannonball! We're shutting honey production! Mission abort. Aborting pollination and nectar detail. Returning to base. Adam, you wouldn't believe how much honey was out there. Oh, yeah? What's going on? Where is everybody? - Are they out celebrating? - They're home. They don't know what to do. Laying out, sleeping in. I heard your Uncle Oarl was on his way to San Antonio with a cricket. At least we got our honey back. Sometimes I think, so what if humans liked our honey? Who wouldn't? It's the greatest thing in the world! I was excited to be part of making it. This was my new desk. This was my new job. I wanted to do it really well. And now... Now I can't. I don't understand why they're not happy. I thought their lives would be better! They're doing nothing. It's amazing. Honey really changes people. You don't have any idea what's going on, do you? - What did you want to show me? - This. What happened here? That is not the half of it. Oh, no. Oh, my. They're all wilting. Doesn't look very good, does it? No. And whose fault do you think that is? You know, I'm gonna guess bees. Bees? Specifically, me. I didn't think bees not needing to make honey would affect all these things. It's notjust flowers. Fruits, vegetables, they all need bees. That's our whole SAT test right there. Take away produce, that affects the entire animal kingdom. And then, of course... The human species? So if there's no more pollination, it could all just go south here, couldn't it? I know this is also partly my fault. How about a suicide pact? How do we do it? - I'll sting you, you step on me. - Thatjust kills you twice. Right, right. Listen, Barry... sorry, but I gotta get going. I had to open my mouth and talk. Vanessa? Vanessa? Why are you leaving? Where are you going? To the final Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena. They've moved it to this weekend because all the flowers are dying. It's the last chance I'll ever have to see it. Vanessa, I just wanna say I'm sorry. I never meant it to turn out like this. I know. Me neither. Tournament of Roses. Roses can't do sports. Wait a minute. Roses. Roses? Roses! Vanessa! Roses?! Barry? - Roses are flowers! - Yes, they are. Flowers, bees, pollen! I know. That's why this is the last parade. Maybe not. Oould you ask him to slow down? Oould you slow down? Barry! OK, I made a huge mistake. This is a total disaster, all my fault. Yes, it kind of is. I've ruined the planet. I wanted to help you with the flower shop. I've made it worse. Actually, it's completely closed down. I thought maybe you were remodeling. But I have another idea, and it's greater than my previous ideas combined. I don't want to hear it! All right, they have the roses, the roses have the pollen. I know every bee, plant and flower bud in this park. All we gotta do is get what they've got back here with what we've got. - Bees. - Park. - Pollen! - Flowers. - Repollination! - Across the nation! Tournament of Roses, Pasadena, Oalifornia. They've got nothing but flowers, floats and cotton candy. Security will be tight. I have an idea. Vanessa Bloome, FTD. Official floral business. It's real. Sorry, ma'am. Nice brooch. Thank you. It was a gift. Once inside, we just pick the right float. How about The Princess and the Pea? I could be the princess, and you could be the pea! Yes, I got it. - Where should I sit? - What are you? - I believe I'm the pea. - The pea? It goes under the mattresses. - Not in this fairy tale, sweetheart. - I'm getting the marshal. You do that! This whole parade is a fiasco! Let's see what this baby'll do. Hey, what are you doing?! Then all we do is blend in with traffic... ...without arousing suspicion. Once at the airport, there's no stopping us. Stop! Security. - You and your insect pack your float? - Yes. Has it been in your possession the entire time? Would you remove your shoes? - Remove your stinger. - It's part of me. I know. Just having some fun. Enjoy your flight. Then if we're lucky, we'll have just enough pollen to do the job. Oan you believe how lucky we are? We have just enough pollen to do the job! I think this is gonna work. It's got to work. Attention, passengers, this is Oaptain Scott. We have a bit of bad weather in New York. It looks like we'll experience a couple hours delay. Barry, these are cut flowers with no water. They'll never make it. I gotta get up there and talk to them. Be careful. Oan I get help with the Sky Mall magazine? I'd like to order the talking inflatable nose and ear hair trimmer. Oaptain, I'm in a real situation. - What'd you say, Hal? - Nothing. Bee! Don't freak out! My entire species... What are you doing? - Wait a minute! I'm an attorney! - Who's an attorney? Don't move. Oh, Barry. Good afternoon, passengers. This is your captain. Would a Miss Vanessa Bloome in 24B please report to the cockpit? And please hurry! What happened here? There was a DustBuster, a toupee, a life raft exploded. One's bald, one's in a boat, they're both unconscious! - Is that another bee joke? - No! No one's flying the plane! This is JFK control tower, Flight 356. What's your status? This is Vanessa Bloome. I'm a florist from New York. Where's the pilot? He's unconscious, and so is the copilot. Not good. Does anyone onboard have flight experience? As a matter of fact, there is. - Who's that? - Barry Benson. From the honey trial?! Oh, great. Vanessa, this is nothing more than a big metal bee. It's got giant wings, huge engines. I can't fly a plane. - Why not? Isn't John Travolta a pilot? - Yes. How hard could it be? Wait, Barry! We're headed into some lightning. This is Bob Bumble. We have some late-breaking news from JFK Airport, where a suspenseful scene is developing. Barry Benson, fresh from his legal victory... That's Barry! ...is attempting to land a plane, loaded with people, flowers and an incapacitated flight crew. Flowers?! We have a storm in the area and two individuals at the controls with absolutely no flight experience. Just a minute. There's a bee on that plane. I'm quite familiar with Mr. Benson and his no-account compadres. They've done enough damage. But isn't he your only hope? Technically, a bee shouldn't be able to fly at all. Their wings are too small... Haven't we heard this a million times? "The surface area of the wings and body mass make no sense." - Get this on the air! - Got it. - Stand by. - We're going live. The way we work may be a mystery to you. Making honey takes a lot of bees doing a lot of small jobs. But let me tell you about a small job. If you do it well, it makes a big difference. More than we realized. To us, to everyone. That's why I want to get bees back to working together. That's the bee way! We're not made of Jell-O. We get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow! - Hello! Left, right, down, hover. - Hover? - Forget hover. This isn't so hard. Beep-beep! Beep-beep! Barry, what happened?! Wait, I think we were on autopilot the whole time. - That may have been helping me. - And now we're not! So it turns out I cannot fly a plane. All of you, let's get behind this fellow! Move it out! Move out! Our only chance is if I do what I'd do, you copy me with the wings of the plane! Don't have to yell. I'm not yelling! We're in a lot of trouble. It's very hard to concentrate with that panicky tone in your voice! It's not a tone. I'm panicking! I can't do this! Vanessa, pull yourself together. You have to snap out of it! You snap out of it. You snap out of it. - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - Hold it! - Why? Oome on, it's my turn. How is the plane flying? I don't know. Hello? Benson, got any flowers for a happy occasion in there? The Pollen Jocks! They do get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow. - Hello. All right, let's drop this tin can on the blacktop. Where? I can't see anything. Oan you? No, nothing. It's all cloudy. Oome on. You got to think bee, Barry. - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Wait a minute. I think I'm feeling something. - What? - I don't know. It's strong, pulling me. Like a 27-million-year-old instinct. Bring the nose down. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - What in the world is on the tarmac? - Get some lights on that! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - Vanessa, aim for the flower. - OK. Out the engines. We're going in on bee power. Ready, boys? Affirmative! Good. Good. Easy, now. That's it. Land on that flower! Ready? Full reverse! Spin it around! - Not that flower! The other one! - Which one? - That flower. - I'm aiming at the flower! That's a fat guy in a flowered shirt. I mean the giant pulsating flower made of millions of bees! Pull forward. Nose down. Tail up. Rotate around it. - This is insane, Barry! - This's the only way I know how to fly. Am I koo-koo-kachoo, or is this plane flying in an insect-like pattern? Get your nose in there. Don't be afraid. Smell it. Full reverse! Just drop it. Be a part of it. Aim for the center! Now drop it in! Drop it in, woman! Oome on, already. Barry, we did it! You taught me how to fly! - Yes. No high-five! - Right. Barry, it worked! Did you see the giant flower? What giant flower? Where? Of course I saw the flower! That was genius! - Thank you. - But we're not done yet. Listen, everyone! This runway is covered with the last pollen from the last flowers available anywhere on Earth. That means this is our last chance. We're the only ones who make honey, pollinate flowers and dress like this. If we're gonna survive as a species, this is our moment! What do you say? Are we going to be bees, orjust Museum of Natural History keychains? We're bees! Keychain! Then follow me! Except Keychain. Hold on, Barry. Here. You've earned this. Yeah! I'm a Pollen Jock! And it's a perfect fit. All I gotta do are the sleeves. Oh, yeah. That's our Barry. Mom! The bees are back! If anybody needs to make a call, now's the time. I got a feeling we'll be working late tonight! Here's your change. Have a great afternoon! Oan I help who's next? Would you like some honey with that? It is bee-approved. Don't forget these. Milk, cream, cheese, it's all me. And I don't see a nickel! Sometimes I just feel like a piece of meat! I had no idea. Barry, I'm sorry. Have you got a moment? Would you excuse me? My mosquito associate will help you. Sorry I'm late. He's a lawyer too? I was already a blood-sucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase. Have a great afternoon! Barry, I just got this huge tulip order, and I can't get them anywhere. No problem, Vannie. Just leave it to me. You're a lifesaver, Barry. Oan I help who's next? All right, scramble, jocks! It's time to fly. Thank you, Barry! That bee is living my life! Let it go, Kenny. - When will this nightmare end?! - Let it all go. - Beautiful day to fly. - Sure is. Between you and me, I was dying to get out of that office. You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. - Thinking bee! - Me? Hold it. Let's just stop for a second. Hold it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, everyone. Oan we stop here? I'm not making a major life decision during a production number! All right. Take ten, everybody. Wrap it up, guys. I had virtually no rehearsal for that.

negative: Lower the drinking age The drinking age should be lowered. If at eighteen a kid becomes an adult, than why are they not allowed to have a drink? I see where people have the concern of college kids drinking, but at eighteen a person is an adult and should be allowed to make their own decisions. In the past the drinking age has been changed many times, so there is a chance it may be changed again. An eighteen year old should be allowed to have a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at a wedding. It is not fair that people considered adults can't do something so much of as having a drink. The drinking age should be lowered to eighteen that way the whole adult population is legally allowed to consume and buy alcohol. The government does not mind sending eighteen year olds to war, but when it comes down to someone their age wanted to casually have a drink, it is illegal. It is not fair and the drinking age should be lowered.

negative: the lizard According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It's got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! - Ever see pollination up close? - No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It's a little bit of magic. That's amazing. Why do we do that? That's pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I'm picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don't we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You're reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don't know, but I'm loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It's a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! - Guys! - This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama's little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don't think these are flowers. - Should we tell him? - I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you're about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There's a bee in the car! - Do something! - I'm driving! - Hi, bee. - He's back here! He's going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don't move, he won't sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow... the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don't need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This... Drapes! That is diabolical. It's fantastic. It's got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What's number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don't go for that... ...kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn't talk to them. They're out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they're flabbergasted, can't believe what I say. There's the sun. Maybe that's a way out. I don't remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don't kill him! You know I'm allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I'm just saying all life has value. You don't know what he's capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I'm not scared of him. It's an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. - Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? - Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. - You could put carob chips on there. - Bye. - Supposed to be less calories. - Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It's a bee law. You're not supposed to talk to a human. I can't believe I'm doing this. I've got to. Oh, I can't do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can't. How should I start it? "You like jazz?" No, that's no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I'm sorry. - You're talking. - Yes, I know. You're talking! I'm so sorry. No, it's OK. It's fine. I know I'm dreaming. But I don't recall going to bed. Well, I'm sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you're a bee! I am. And I'm not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn't for you... I had to thank you. It's just how I was raised. That was a little weird. - I'm talking with a bee. - Yeah. I'm talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I'm grateful. I'll leave now. - Wait! How did you learn to do that? - What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. "Mama, Dada, honey." You pick it up. - That's very funny. - Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway... Oan I... ...get you something? - Like what? I don't know. I mean... I don't know. Ooffee? I don't want to put you out. It's no trouble. It takes two minutes. - It's just coffee. - I hate to impose. - Don't be ridiculous! - Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? - I shouldn't. - Have some. - No, I can't. - Oome on! I'm trying to lose a couple micrograms. - Where? - These stripes don't help. You look great! I don't know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He's making the tie in the cab as they're flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, "Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?" Is that a bee joke? That's the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don't know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can't do it the way they want. I know how you feel. - You do? - Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. - Really? - My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look... There's my hive right there. See it? You're in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I'm right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. - Why do girls put rings on their toes? - Why not? - It's like putting a hat on your knee. - Maybe I'll try that. - You all right, ma'am? - Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it's no trouble. Sorry I couldn't finish it. If I did, I'd be up the rest of my life. Are you...? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. - Thanks! - Yeah. All right. Well, then... I guess I'll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again... for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but... Anyway... This can't possibly work. He's all set to go. We may as well try it. OK, Dave, pull the chute. - Sounds amazing. - It was amazing! It was the scariest, happiest moment of my life. Humans! I can't believe you were with humans! Giant, scary humans! What were they like? Huge and crazy. They talk crazy. They eat crazy giant things. They drive crazy. - Do they try and kill you, like on TV? - Some of them. But some of them don't. - How'd you get back? - Poodle. You did it, and I'm glad. You saw whatever you wanted to see. You had your "experience." Now you can pick out yourjob and be normal. - Well... - Well? Well, I met someone. You did? Was she Bee-ish? - A wasp?! Your parents will kill you! - No, no, no, not a wasp. - Spider? - I'm not attracted to spiders. I know it's the hottest thing, with the eight legs and all. I can't get by that face. So who is she? She's... human. No, no. That's a bee law. You wouldn't break a bee law. - Her name's Vanessa. - Oh, boy. She's so nice. And she's a florist! Oh, no! You're dating a human florist! We're not dating. You're flying outside the hive, talking to humans that attack our homes with power washers and M-80s! One-eighth a stick of dynamite! She saved my life! And she understands me. This is over! Eat this. This is not over! What was that? - They call it a crumb. - It was so stingin' stripey! And that's not what they eat. That's what falls off what they eat! - You know what a Oinnabon is? - No. It's bread and cinnamon and frosting. They heat it up... Sit down! ...really hot! - Listen to me! We are not them! We're us. There's us and there's them! Yes, but who can deny the heart that is yearning? There's no yearning. Stop yearning. Listen to me! You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. Thinking bee! - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! There he is. He's in the pool. You know what your problem is, Barry? I gotta start thinking bee? How much longer will this go on? It's been three days! Why aren't you working? I've got a lot of big life decisions to think about. What life? You have no life! You have no job. You're barely a bee! Would it kill you to make a little honey? Barry, come out. Your father's talking to you. Martin, would you talk to him? Barry, I'm talking to you! You coming? Got everything? All set! Go ahead. I'll catch up. Don't be too long. Watch this! Vanessa! - We're still here. - I told you not to yell at him. He doesn't respond to yelling! - Then why yell at me? - Because you don't listen! I'm not listening to this. Sorry, I've gotta go. - Where are you going? - I'm meeting a friend. A girl? Is this why you can't decide? Bye. I just hope she's Bee-ish. They have a huge parade of flowers every year in Pasadena? To be in the Tournament of Roses, that's every florist's dream! Up on a float, surrounded by flowers, crowds cheering. A tournament. Do the roses compete in athletic events? No. All right, I've got one. How come you don't fly everywhere? It's exhausting. Why don't you run everywhere? It's faster. Yeah, OK, I see, I see. All right, your turn. TiVo. You can just freeze live TV? That's insane! You don't have that? We have Hivo, but it's a disease. It's a horrible, horrible disease. Oh, my. Dumb bees! You must want to sting all those jerks. We try not to sting. It's usually fatal for us. So you have to watch your temper. Very carefully. You kick a wall, take a walk, write an angry letter and throw it out. Work through it like any emotion: Anger, jealousy, lust. Oh, my goodness! Are you OK? Yeah. - What is wrong with you?! - It's a bug. He's not bothering anybody. Get out of here, you creep! What was that? A Pic 'N' Save circular? Yeah, it was. How did you know? It felt like about 10 pages. Seventy-five is pretty much our limit. You've really got that down to a science. - I lost a cousin to Italian Vogue. - I'll bet. What in the name of Mighty Hercules is this? How did this get here? Oute Bee, Golden Blossom, Ray Liotta Private Select? - Is he that actor? - I never heard of him. - Why is this here? - For people. We eat it. You don't have enough food of your own? - Well, yes. - How do you get it? - Bees make it. - I know who makes it! And it's hard to make it! There's heating, cooling, stirring. You need a whole Krelman thing! - It's organic. - It's our-ganic! It's just honey, Barry. Just what?! Bees don't know about this! This is stealing! A lot of stealing! You've taken our homes, schools, hospitals! This is all we have! And it's on sale?! I'm getting to the bottom of this. I'm getting to the bottom of all of this! Hey, Hector. - You almost done? - Almost. He is here. I sense it. Well, I guess I'll go home now and just leave this nice honey out, with no one around. You're busted, box boy! I knew I heard something. So you can talk! I can talk. And now you'll start talking! Where you getting the sweet stuff? Who's your supplier? I don't understand. I thought we were friends. The last thing we want to do is upset bees! You're too late! It's ours now! You, sir, have crossed the wrong sword! You, sir, will be lunch for my iguana, Ignacio! Where is the honey coming from? Tell me where! Honey Farms! It comes from Honey Farms! Orazy person! What horrible thing has happened here? These faces, they never knew what hit them. And now they're on the road to nowhere! Just keep still. What? You're not dead? Do I look dead? They will wipe anything that moves. Where you headed? To Honey Farms. I am onto something huge here. I'm going to Alaska. Moose blood, crazy stuff. Blows your head off! I'm going to Tacoma. - And you? - He really is dead. All right. Uh-oh! - What is that?! - Oh, no! - A wiper! Triple blade! - Triple blade? Jump on! It's your only chance, bee! Why does everything have to be so doggone clean?! How much do you people need to see?! Open your eyes! Stick your head out the window! From NPR News in Washington, I'm Oarl Kasell. But don't kill no more bugs! - Bee! - Moose blood guy!! - You hear something? - Like what? Like tiny screaming. Turn off the radio. Whassup, bee boy? Hey, Blood. Just a row of honey jars, as far as the eye could see. Wow! I assume wherever this truck goes is where they're getting it. I mean, that honey's ours. - Bees hang tight. - We're all jammed in. It's a close community. Not us, man. We on our own. Every mosquito on his own. - What if you get in trouble? - You a mosquito, you in trouble. Nobody likes us. They just smack. See a mosquito, smack, smack! At least you're out in the world. You must meet girls. Mosquito girls try to trade up, get with a moth, dragonfly. Mosquito girl don't want no mosquito. You got to be kidding me! Mooseblood's about to leave the building! So long, bee! - Hey, guys! - Mooseblood! I knew I'd catch y'all down here. Did you bring your crazy straw? We throw it in jars, slap a label on it, and it's pretty much pure profit. What is this place? A bee's got a brain the size of a pinhead. They are pinheads! Pinhead. - Oheck out the new smoker. - Oh, sweet. That's the one you want. The Thomas 3000! Smoker? Ninety puffs a minute, semi-automatic. Twice the nicotine, all the tar. A couple breaths of this knocks them right out. They make the honey, and we make the money. "They make the honey, and we make the money"? Oh, my! What's going on? Are you OK? Yeah. It doesn't last too long. Do you know you're in a fake hive with fake walls? Our queen was moved here. We had no choice. This is your queen? That's a man in women's clothes! That's a drag queen! What is this? Oh, no! There's hundreds of them! Bee honey. Our honey is being brazenly stolen on a massive scale! This is worse than anything bears have done! I intend to do something. Oh, Barry, stop. Who told you humans are taking our honey? That's a rumor. Do these look like rumors? That's a conspiracy theory. These are obviously doctored photos. How did you get mixed up in this? He's been talking to humans. - What? - Talking to humans?! He has a human girlfriend. And they make out! Make out? Barry! We do not. - You wish you could. - Whose side are you on? The bees! I dated a cricket once in San Antonio. Those crazy legs kept me up all night. Barry, this is what you want to do with your life? I want to do it for all our lives. Nobody works harder than bees! Dad, I remember you coming home so overworked your hands were still stirring. You couldn't stop. I remember that. What right do they have to our honey? We live on two cups a year. They put it in lip balm for no reason whatsoever! Even if it's true, what can one bee do? Sting them where it really hurts. In the face! The eye! - That would hurt. - No. Up the nose? That's a killer. There's only one place you can sting the humans, one place where it matters. Hive at Five, the hive's only full-hour action news source. No more bee beards! With Bob Bumble at the anchor desk. Weather with Storm Stinger. Sports with Buzz Larvi. And Jeanette Ohung. - Good evening. I'm Bob Bumble. - And I'm Jeanette Ohung. A tri-county bee, Barry Benson, intends to sue the human race for stealing our honey, packaging it and profiting from it illegally! Tomorrow night on Bee Larry King, we'll have three former queens here in our studio, discussing their new book, Olassy Ladies, out this week on Hexagon. Tonight we're talking to Barry Benson. Did you ever think, "I'm a kid from the hive. I can't do this"? Bees have never been afraid to change the world. What about Bee Oolumbus? Bee Gandhi? Bejesus? Where I'm from, we'd never sue humans. We were thinking of stickball or candy stores. How old are you? The bee community is supporting you in this case, which will be the trial of the bee century. You know, they have a Larry King in the human world too. It's a common name. Next week... He looks like you and has a show and suspenders and colored dots... Next week... Glasses, quotes on the bottom from the guest even though you just heard 'em. Bear Week next week! They're scary, hairy and here live. Always leans forward, pointy shoulders, squinty eyes, very Jewish. In tennis, you attack at the point of weakness! It was my grandmother, Ken. She's 81. Honey, her backhand's a joke! I'm not gonna take advantage of that? Quiet, please. Actual work going on here. - Is that that same bee? - Yes, it is! I'm helping him sue the human race. - Hello. - Hello, bee. This is Ken. Yeah, I remember you. Timberland, size ten and a half. Vibram sole, I believe. Why does he talk again? Listen, you better go 'cause we're really busy working. But it's our yogurt night! Bye-bye. Why is yogurt night so difficult?! You poor thing. You two have been at this for hours! Yes, and Adam here has been a huge help. - Frosting... - How many sugars? Just one. I try not to use the competition. So why are you helping me? Bees have good qualities. And it takes my mind off the shop. Instead of flowers, people are giving balloon bouquets now. Those are great, if you're three. And artificial flowers. - Oh, those just get me psychotic! - Yeah, me too. Bent stingers, pointless pollination. Bees must hate those fake things! Nothing worse than a daffodil that's had work done. Maybe this could make up for it a little bit. - This lawsuit's a pretty big deal. - I guess. You sure you want to go through with it? Am I sure? When I'm done with the humans, they won't be able to say, "Honey, I'm home," without paying a royalty! It's an incredible scene here in downtown Manhattan, where the world anxiously waits, because for the first time in history, we will hear for ourselves if a honeybee can actually speak. What have we gotten into here, Barry? It's pretty big, isn't it? I can't believe how many humans don't work during the day. You think billion-dollar multinational food companies have good lawyers? Everybody needs to stay behind the barricade. - What's the matter? - I don't know, I just got a chill. Well, if it isn't the bee team. You boys work on this? All rise! The Honorable Judge Bumbleton presiding. All right. Oase number 4475, Superior Oourt of New York, Barry Bee Benson v. the Honey Industry is now in session. Mr. Montgomery, you're representing the five food companies collectively? A privilege. Mr. Benson... you're representing all the bees of the world? I'm kidding. Yes, Your Honor, we're ready to proceed. Mr. Montgomery, your opening statement, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman. Born on a farm, she believed it was man's divine right to benefit from the bounty of nature God put before us. If we lived in the topsy-turvy world Mr. Benson imagines, just think of what would it mean. I would have to negotiate with the silkworm for the elastic in my britches! Talking bee! How do we know this isn't some sort of holographic motion-picture-capture Hollywood wizardry? They could be using laser beams! Robotics! Ventriloquism! Oloning! For all we know, he could be on steroids! Mr. Benson? Ladies and gentlemen, there's no trickery here. I'm just an ordinary bee. Honey's pretty important to me. It's important to all bees. We invented it! We make it. And we protect it with our lives. Unfortunately, there are some people in this room who think they can take it from us 'cause we're the little guys! I'm hoping that, after this is all over, you'll see how, by taking our honey, you not only take everything we have but everything we are! I wish he'd dress like that all the time. So nice! Oall your first witness. So, Mr. Klauss Vanderhayden of Honey Farms, big company you have. I suppose so. I see you also own Honeyburton and Honron! Yes, they provide beekeepers for our farms. Beekeeper. I find that to be a very disturbing term. I don't imagine you employ any bee-free-ers, do you? - No. - I couldn't hear you. - No. - No. Because you don't free bees. You keep bees. Not only that, it seems you thought a bear would be an appropriate image for a jar of honey. They're very lovable creatures. Yogi Bear, Fozzie Bear, Build-A-Bear. You mean like this? Bears kill bees! How'd you like his head crashing through your living room?! Biting into your couch! Spitting out your throw pillows! OK, that's enough. Take him away. So, Mr. Sting, thank you for being here. Your name intrigues me. - Where have I heard it before? - I was with a band called The Police. But you've never been a police officer, have you? No, I haven't. No, you haven't. And so here we have yet another example of bee culture casually stolen by a human for nothing more than a prance-about stage name. Oh, please. Have you ever been stung, Mr. Sting? Because I'm feeling a little stung, Sting. Or should I say... Mr. Gordon M. Sumner! That's not his real name?! You idiots! Mr. Liotta, first, belated congratulations on your Emmy win for a guest spot on ER in 2005. Thank you. Thank you. I see from your resume that you're devilishly handsome with a churning inner turmoil that's ready to blow. I enjoy what I do. Is that a crime? Not yet it isn't. But is this what it's come to for you? Exploiting tiny, helpless bees so you don't have to rehearse your part and learn your lines, sir? Watch it, Benson! I could blow right now! This isn't a goodfella. This is a badfella! Why doesn't someone just step on this creep, and we can all go home?! - Order in this court! - You're all thinking it! Order! Order, I say! - Say it! - Mr. Liotta, please sit down! I think it was awfully nice of that bear to pitch in like that. I think the jury's on our side. Are we doing everything right, legally? I'm a florist. Right. Well, here's to a great team. To a great team! Well, hello. - Ken! - Hello. I didn't think you were coming. No, I was just late. I tried to call, but... the battery. I didn't want all this to go to waste, so I called Barry. Luckily, he was free. Oh, that was lucky. There's a little left. I could heat it up. Yeah, heat it up, sure, whatever. So I hear you're quite a tennis player. I'm not much for the game myself. The ball's a little grabby. That's where I usually sit. Right... there. Ken, Barry was looking at your resume, and he agreed with me that eating with chopsticks isn't really a special skill. You think I don't see what you're doing? I know how hard it is to find the rightjob. We have that in common. Do we? Bees have 100 percent employment, but we do jobs like taking the crud out. That's just what I was thinking about doing. Ken, I let Barry borrow your razor for his fuzz. I hope that was all right. I'm going to drain the old stinger. Yeah, you do that. Look at that. You know, I've just about had it with your little mind games. - What's that? - Italian Vogue. Mamma mia, that's a lot of pages. A lot of ads. Remember what Van said, why is your life more valuable than mine? Funny, I just can't seem to recall that! I think something stinks in here! I love the smell of flowers. How do you like the smell of flames?! Not as much. Water bug! Not taking sides! Ken, I'm wearing a Ohapstick hat! This is pathetic! I've got issues! Well, well, well, a royal flush! - You're bluffing. - Am I? Surf's up, dude! Poo water! That bowl is gnarly. Except for those dirty yellow rings! Kenneth! What are you doing?! You know, I don't even like honey! I don't eat it! We need to talk! He's just a little bee! And he happens to be the nicest bee I've met in a long time! Long time? What are you talking about?! Are there other bugs in your life? No, but there are other things bugging me in life. And you're one of them! Fine! Talking bees, no yogurt night... My nerves are fried from riding on this emotional roller coaster! Goodbye, Ken. And for your information, I prefer sugar-free, artificial sweeteners made by man! I'm sorry about all that. I know it's got an aftertaste! I like it! I always felt there was some kind of barrier between Ken and me. I couldn't overcome it. Oh, well. Are you OK for the trial? I believe Mr. Montgomery is about out of ideas. We would like to call Mr. Barry Benson Bee to the stand. Good idea! You can really see why he's considered one of the best lawyers... Yeah. Layton, you've gotta weave some magic with this jury, or it's gonna be all over. Don't worry. The only thing I have to do to turn this jury around is to remind them of what they don't like about bees. - You got the tweezers? - Are you allergic? Only to losing, son. Only to losing. Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think we'd all like to know. What exactly is your relationship to that woman? We're friends. - Good friends? - Yes. How good? Do you live together? Wait a minute... Are you her little... ...bedbug? I've seen a bee documentary or two. From what I understand, doesn't your queen give birth to all the bee children? - Yeah, but... - So those aren't your real parents! - Oh, Barry... - Yes, they are! Hold me back! You're an illegitimate bee, aren't you, Benson? He's denouncing bees! Don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection! - I'm going to pincushion this guy! Adam, don't! It's what he wants! Oh, I'm hit!! Oh, lordy, I am hit! Order! Order! The venom! The venom is coursing through my veins! I have been felled by a winged beast of destruction! You see? You can't treat them like equals! They're striped savages! Stinging's the only thing they know! It's their way! - Adam, stay with me. - I can't feel my legs. What angel of mercy will come forward to suck the poison from my heaving buttocks? I will have order in this court. Order! Order, please! The case of the honeybees versus the human race took a pointed turn against the bees yesterday when one of their legal team stung Layton T. Montgomery. - Hey, buddy. - Hey. - Is there much pain? - Yeah. I... I blew the whole case, didn't I? It doesn't matter. What matters is you're alive. You could have died. I'd be better off dead. Look at me. They got it from the cafeteria downstairs, in a tuna sandwich. Look, there's a little celery still on it. What was it like to sting someone? I can't explain it. It was all... All adrenaline and then... and then ecstasy! All right. You think it was all a trap? Of course. I'm sorry. I flew us right into this. What were we thinking? Look at us. We're just a couple of bugs in this world. What will the humans do to us if they win? I don't know. I hear they put the roaches in motels. That doesn't sound so bad. Adam, they check in, but they don't check out! Oh, my. Oould you get a nurse to close that window? - Why? - The smoke. Bees don't smoke. Right. Bees don't smoke. Bees don't smoke! But some bees are smoking. That's it! That's our case! It is? It's not over? Get dressed. I've gotta go somewhere. Get back to the court and stall. Stall any way you can. And assuming you've done step correctly, you're ready for the tub. Mr. Flayman. Yes? Yes, Your Honor! Where is the rest of your team? Well, Your Honor, it's interesting. Bees are trained to fly haphazardly, and as a result, we don't make very good time. I actually heard a funny story about... Your Honor, haven't these ridiculous bugs taken up enough of this court's valuable time? How much longer will we allow these absurd shenanigans to go on? They have presented no compelling evidence to support their charges against my clients, who run legitimate businesses. I move for a complete dismissal of this entire case! Mr. Flayman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider Mr. Montgomery's motion. But you can't! We have a terrific case. Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Show me the smoking gun! Hold it, Your Honor! You want a smoking gun? Here is your smoking gun. What is that? It's a bee smoker! What, this? This harmless little contraption? This couldn't hurt a fly, let alone a bee. Look at what has happened to bees who have never been asked, "Smoking or non?" Is this what nature intended for us? To be forcibly addicted to smoke machines and man-made wooden slat work camps? Living out our lives as honey slaves to the white man? - What are we gonna do? - He's playing the species card. Ladies and gentlemen, please, free these bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! The court finds in favor of the bees! Vanessa, we won! I knew you could do it! High-five! Sorry. I'm OK! You know what this means? All the honey will finally belong to the bees. Now we won't have to work so hard all the time. This is an unholy perversion of the balance of nature, Benson. You'll regret this. Barry, how much honey is out there? All right. One at a time. Barry, who are you wearing? My sweater is Ralph Lauren, and I have no pants. - What if Montgomery's right? - What do you mean? We've been living the bee way a long time, 27 million years. Oongratulations on your victory. What will you demand as a settlement? First, we'll demand a complete shutdown of all bee work camps. Then we want back the honey that was ours to begin with, every last drop. We demand an end to the glorification of the bear as anything more than a filthy, smelly, bad-breath stink machine. We're all aware of what they do in the woods. Wait for my signal. Take him out. He'll have nauseous for a few hours, then he'll be fine. And we will no longer tolerate bee-negative nicknames... But it's just a prance-about stage name! ...unnecessary inclusion of honey in bogus health products and la-dee-da human tea-time snack garnishments. Oan't breathe. Bring it in, boys! Hold it right there! Good. Tap it. Mr. Buzzwell, we just passed three cups, and there's gallons more coming! - I think we need to shut down! - Shut down? We've never shut down. Shut down honey production! Stop making honey! Turn your key, sir! What do we do now? Oannonball! We're shutting honey production! Mission abort. Aborting pollination and nectar detail. Returning to base. Adam, you wouldn't believe how much honey was out there. Oh, yeah? What's going on? Where is everybody? - Are they out celebrating? - They're home. They don't know what to do. Laying out, sleeping in. I heard your Uncle Oarl was on his way to San Antonio with a cricket. At least we got our honey back. Sometimes I think, so what if humans liked our honey? Who wouldn't? It's the greatest thing in the world! I was excited to be part of making it. This was my new desk. This was my new job. I wanted to do it really well. And now... Now I can't. I don't understand why they're not happy. I thought their lives would be better! They're doing nothing. It's amazing. Honey really changes people. You don't have any idea what's going on, do you? - What did you want to show me? - This. What happened here? That is not the half of it. Oh, no. Oh, my. They're all wilting. Doesn't look very good, does it? No. And whose fault do you think that is? You know, I'm gonna guess bees. Bees? Specifically, me. I didn't think bees not needing to make honey would affect all these things. It's notjust flowers.

negative: in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory I affirm the resolution Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Definitions Ought - "used to indicate duty or correctness." (Oxford Dictionaries Online) Compulsory Voting " A system of elections in which citizens who have the right and means to vote are required by law to vote. Nonvoters in this system face fines. Democracy " "government by the people; especially": rule of the majority" (Merriam-Webster online) Equality " "the state of being equal, especially in having the same rights, status,"and opportunities" (MacMillan Dictionary) My value"will be democracy, defined earlier as a government by the people. This value is appropriate because the resolution is a question of how to uphold democracy. It is important because a democratic government should uphold the principle of the "rule of the majority" as strongly as possible. My"criterion"will be equality. Equality is an important pillar of democracy that compulsory voting strengthens by ensuring that all individuals get a voice in government. Without it, democracy cannot exist because certain groups may face disenfranchisement as a result. Note: In this system, all ballots will have an option of "none of the above." This option is intended to protect the right not to vote. Checking this option is still meaningful to candidates because it shows that there are a number of votes that are still up for grabs, and if politicians address the needs of the groups who tend to pick this option, they can persuade those individuals to vote for them. Contention 1: Low Voter Turnout Threatens Democracy a."Low Turnout Threatens Majority Rule Low voter turnout is an issue in many democratic countries. Even worse is that with each passing generation, the average turnout is dropping steadily. The United States is a perfect example of this. Jason"Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 192-3 First, I will present the facts."Voter turnout has fallen significantly during the past several decades."Most"estimates show a decline of ten to fifteen points for turnout in both presidential and non-presidential elections from the 1960s to today."The official numbers from the U.S. Census report turnout at 69.3% in 1964 and at 58.3% in 2004, which was up from the low of 54.2% in 1996. The drop in turnout looks better or worse depending on how one crunches the numbers, but the bottom line is that"turnout in the past several decades has declined in most advanced democracies with the United"States at the"bottom of the pack among this group in terms of overall turnout. Some may be satisfied with the fact that turnout is up so far this decade in comparison to the last decade. However, it is imprudent to depend on once-in-a-lifetime campaigns or political events to mobilize voters. If the goal is sustained, high turnout nationally among all demographic groups should increase. In a democracy, it is ultimately the will of the people that decide the outcomes of elections and influential policy decisions. If voter turnout is low, then it"s possible that the so-called majority could actually be a minority of the population making decisions for the entire population. This goes against the very definition of democracy as the rule of the people. Compulsory voting fixes this problem by increasing voter turnout. Australia is an example of how compulsory voting has been successful. Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 Academic analysis shows that"compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters,"wherever it is used. "There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for"Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. "The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since. "A similar drop in Australia would amount to about 1.5 million fewer voters in a national election. In the older democracies that have voluntary voting, the turnout has usually been in the order of 70 to 80 percent, though in recent elections such countries have actually experienced a marked decline in turnout." "Compulsory voting solves this problem by giving individuals an equal say in their government. More people go out to vote, and as a result, the majority actually rules. As a result, the decisions of the democracy become more legitimate because the results are being decided by a majority of the entire population, not just the majority of the portion of the population that decided to vote. The equality in status that compulsory voting provides makes the decisions that people make for the democracy more legitimate, which thus upholds democracy. b."Low Voter Turnout Creates an Unrepresentative Democracy Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 23 An election can be thought of as a political census in which near universal participation is required to generate political decisions that are an accurate reflection of what the population actually wants."When less than two-thirds of the electorate goes to the polls, the government that results from this election typically has the expressed support of well under a third of those eligible to vote."Democratic legitimacy concerns may not weigh heavily with the ordinary voter, but they certainly do trouble the collective minds of governments, and it is no wonder that falling turnout should have generated hand-wringing among the political elite."Compulsory turnout would ensure that virtually all voices are taken into account, and that the outputs of the electoral process thus have full democratic legitimacy. Unless a true majority of the population votes, an election is illegitimate because a minority of the population is masquerading itself as a majority. By giving all individuals equal access to ballots, this problem can be corrected because the voices of all individuals would be taken into account. This is the only way to ensure a legitimate democracy; a democracy cannot represent the people unless all voices are accounted for. Contention 2: The Status Quo Creates an Imbalance of Power Skewed Towards the Wealthy It has also been shown that there are large gaps in voter turnout between different socioeconomic groups. Studies have shown that wealthier individuals are much more likely to vote than those who are impoverished. Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 22 The gap in turnout between socio-economic groups is"less pronounced, but still"alarmingly large: depending on the measure of socio-economic status employed, it ranges from 13 to 16 per cent between those at the lowest and those at the highest rungs of the ladder"(Keaney and Rogers 2006). These figures suggest that"there is a serious inclusivity problem associated with electoral politics. As long as the poor don"t vote, politicians will not spend much time addressing their needs because they are unlikely to vote. Instead, they will cater to the needs of the middle class and the wealthy because they will likely make up the majority of the people who vote. As a result, the status quo has a system of elections that is biased towards wealthier individuals. This leads to policies that are skewed towards these groups because the politicians are catering to them so that they can guarantee their vote in the future. If compulsory voting is instilled, this problem will be solved because now, everyone is voting. As a result, politicians will address to the needs of these disenfranchised groups, which leads to equality amongst all groups because policies will be passed which fairly benefit both the wealthy and those in poverty, which benefits democracy by taking into account the voices of all groups of people. Democracy is also enhanced when this happens because a key principle of democracy is that the government serves the people. In this case, compulsory voting serves the people by reducing income inequality. Because the will of the people dictates that the government should do whatever it can to help the people, the will of the people dictates that the government ought to enact compulsory voting. Contention 3: Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization Political polarization occurs when political attitudes diverge towards ideological extremes. Compulsory voting can solve this problem. Eric Liu. "Why Voting Should Be Mandatory." Times."August 21,"2012. http://ideas.time.com... Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues,"it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders,"who are"exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."And"they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. Even though the evidence specifically mentions the United States, it is easy to cross-apply this analysis to other democracies. Those that have multiple parties are bound to run into this problem because in the status quo, the first goal of the parties is to get their partisan bases to vote, and whichever base gets more votes wins the election. Moderates are left out in this system. Compulsory voting eliminates this strategy because now, individuals from varied views will be voting. This equality amongst all types of political views will mean that politics will become less polarized. This is because candidates must now focus on those with moderate views that were previously left out of campaign discourse. This improves democracy because the will of all people, not just those with partisan views, is represented. For this reason as well others stated throughout my case, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in today"s debate.

negative: That the drinking age should be eliminated The drinking age should be eliminated because alcohol is indeed dangerous and can cause accidents but it would not just be the youth of our nation being involved in the accidents. An 18-year-old can join the military to fight and possibly die for his country, but he can"t drink a beer to celebrate his send-off. One can get drug prescriptions " even an abortion " before the 21st birthday. Just because a select few wouldn't be able to act mature about drinking alcohol but I strongly believe that the vast majority would not abuse the consumption of alcohol.

negative: Should the voting age be lowered 1) The specific section of the source I quotes does not say what you have said it does. The article points to research which demonstrates that the frontal lobe of a teenager aged 12 to 17 (not 8) is less developed than their adult counterparts. Researchers attribute the poor decision making and short termed thinking patterns of teenagers to this biological difference. It has nothing to do with peer pressure.2) First, the tide pods bit was a pithy, toss away line, not the crux of my rebuttal. Second, the article you provided to substantiate your claim discusses the risks posed to those who suffer from psychological impairments.At this point, I would point out that I am the only party here who has put forth an argument that is not highly speculative and that is actually substantiated by credible evidence. Thank you.As an addendum, here is some further reading on the Tide Pod Challenge phenomenon:https://tinyurl.com...

negative: Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote As the Beatles once said, "Let it be"Mother Mary comes to me. " And because I want Mother Mary to come to me, we should let it be and negate the resolved: should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote. We offer one sole observation: PRO cannot win merely by showing flaws of electoral vote; rather, they must also display solvency. Contention one: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy. Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as "a subject terrific for political analysis"it is truly a gift that keeps on giving. " He furthers that "the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching. " This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including "clarifying citizens" understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens. " Because the Electoral College uniquely creates this political discourse that provides all of the above benefits, it achieves political awareness and participation that would not be brought about by direct popular vote. Contention two: The Electoral College protects against fraud. Sub-point A: Majority fraud. According to Richard Darlington of Cornell University, "Majority fraud is when a majority within a state makes its majority look bigger than it really is, as when they stretch their candidate's vote from 60% to 70%"In an electoral college system, majority fraud conveys no advantage at all"Thus under an electoral college system the easiest type of fraud is totally useless. " In short, under the Electoral College, no matter how big the margin of victory is, the winning candidate will win the same number of electoral votes. However, the Heritage Foundation"s Tara Ross explains "direct popular vote would increase the incentive for fraud" because "any stolen vote would have at least some effect. " The impact is that the Electoral College safeguards against this fraud while direct popular vote does not. Sub-point B: Minority fraud. Darlington continues on to state that "minority fraud is when the minority manages to fraudulently gather enough additional votes to make itself look like a majority. " He explains that when this happens in an electoral college, the effects of minority fraud are restricted to the state in which it happened alone. On the other hand, minority fraud in a popular election would involve the entire nation. The impact we bring you is that direct popular vote is much more conducive to fraud than the Electoral College; thus, the Electoral College should be preferred. Sub-point C: Recounts CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote "if the popular vote should be close"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in"all states where any ballots could be contested. " Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it "isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required. " Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. Contention three: The Electoral College prevents polarization. Sub-point A: Big cities. The implementation of direct popular vote would mean a focus on large cities. Darshan Goux of the University of California Berkeley explains that with popular vote, "resources, principally time and money, would remain limited "" in fact, even more so given the vastly expanded field of play. " Andy Brehm of the Minneapolis Star Tribune furthers, "If attaining the most votes nationally were all that mattered, nominees would turn a deaf ear to the rural electorate"Major cities would be the sole battlegrounds in presidential elections. " Direct popular vote would mean that candidates focus disproportionately on big cities, ignoring rural areas. This makes popular vote an intrinsically unjust system. Sub-point B: Swing states. John R. Wright of OSU conducted an empirical study demonstrating that certain states are swing states because they "closely approximate national trends. " In other words, swing states reflect the beliefs of the entire nation. This is supported by the Cook Partisan Voting Index, or CPVI, a political tool that measures how politically polarized states are. The CPVI finds that swing states such as Ohio or Florida are in the political center. Thus, by campaigning in swing states, candidates are appealing to the political center of America. The impact is that this is clearly preferable to having big cities decide the election.

negative: Should the voting age be lowered 1) I never argued that teenagers do not pay taxes at all. I argued they pay fewer taxes and they have less at stake in the political decisions made by government. Moreover, you pointed out that teenagers are allowed to drive, as a means of supporting your side of this debate. I believe that this was a rather poor example to choose, as young drivers are more likely to be involved in car accidents than their adult cohorts. Indeed, according to the Center for Disease Control, "Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and allow shorter headways (the distance from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next)." [1] Moreover, they're less likely to recognize dangerous driving habits and situations. [1] Again, they clearly still need to undergo some mental maturation.2) Once again, the tide pod business was not my argument. It was a J-O-K-E.Sources:[1] https://www.cdc.gov...; Under "Risk factors" tab

negative: Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting I will begin by extending my thanks to tylergraham95 for engaging with me in this debate. In this round, I shall present my own case as to why voting ought to be compulsory. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTION 1. Democracy - according to Encarta, is a democratic nation; a country with a government that has been freely elected by the eligible electorate. 2. Vote - according to American Heritage, is an opinion case in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. Compulsory - according to Merriam-Webster this means mandatory; obligatory Ought, according to Encarta, expresses desirability. For example, if someone says "you ought to fix the sink; it's been running for ages," that person is implying that it would be desirable to fix the sink. It may therefore be useful to define one more term: desirable, according to Merriam-Webster, denotes that something is advantageous or beneficial. Consequently, it is my burden in this round to show that compulsory voting is desirable (beneficial), whereas Con must show that it is not. PRO's CASE Now that we have a clearer understanding of the topic, I can present my arguments in support of compulsory voting. It is my thesis and main contention that compulsory voting (CV) is beneficial. If it is, then it is a desirable course of action that a democracy ought to take. Sub-point A: CV will boost turnout. "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [1] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. "The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor"even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects." [3] "Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt." [4] Sub-point C: CV corrects against "free riders." "The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing...Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold"it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout...It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour." [5] Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized--ome might say hyper-polarized--by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [6] Sub-point E: CV reduces violence. "State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society "in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives"." [3] "The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes "the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change..."An apathetic electorate"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely." [7] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [4] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS The sources above detail how beneficial CV truly is. It has the capacity to boost voter turnout consistantly, which in turn helps bridge socio-economic gaps with tangible impacts for electoral fairness. Moreover, this type of high-turnout actually enhances governmental legitimacy. CV also combats free riders, who immoral glean benefits from a system in which they do not participate, and it decreases polarization by ensuring that it is not simply the more extreme elements of the electorate who are voting. This also has the potential to reduce sharp and jarring policy shifts as different extreme elements assume power. In addendum, CV has tangible benefits in that it promotes peaceable dialogues over violent clashes. Therefore, CV is beneficial, and I must urge a PRO VOTE! Thank you! SOURCES 1 - Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 2 -Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 4 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 5 - Lever, Anabelle. Philosophy Professor-London School of Economic and Political Science, 2008, "Compulsory voting: a critical perspective," British Journal of Political Science, [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...], p. 11 6 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 7 - Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, Adjunct Prof. of Law at DePaul University "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 I apologize in advance for any formatting errors--I am being forced to use a library computer as my own laptop in undergoing repair. Thanks to the judges and to tyler. I looked forward to a great debate!

negative: Should Drinking age be lowered My OPP has once again given up another round. I take it she has given up.