query: Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

positive: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras * This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today’s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., "Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. ” The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system “disempowers people of color. ” At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. ” That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. ”"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The “he did it because he is African American” approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people’s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., "Knowledge that events are being recorded creates "self-awareness" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts—as well as courts of public opinion—should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., " During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... "The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed," said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. "However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. "The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the “he did it” and the “no I did not” approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.

positive: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install "Nanny Cams" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have "felt safe" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, "What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, "Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment." Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the "many regulations" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes "recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends." In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, "If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.

positive: Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. I will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the United States as the basis country and governmental system we discuss, as he must agree that it is. Off of his 1 argument: Private is defined as not open or accessible to the general public. My opponent tries to argue the point that a public area no longer becomes public once you put cameras into it. Public as I defined before is open to all persons. So if we put more surveillance cameras in a grocery store, does it become a private venue? No, it does not. It is still accessible to the public, but rather the increase in surveillance cameras will make the public feel safer. Private areas can also certainly have cameras, but that's not the point of this debate. Off of his 2 argument: Look to my third contention where I talk about how this resolution says should happen. I don't have to provide a budgetary plan or show the pragmatics of the situation. But even if I had to compare budgetary plans, his alternative to cameras are security guards which would cost a lot more money than surveillance cameras, and you would have to keep paying them every single year. I will further discuss this in his third and fourth arguments. Off of his 3 argument: The security guards can stop criminals right there, but cameras can also catch them and make sure they don't get away. Do not let this debate round become surveillance cameras against security guards. We are here to discuss surveillance cameras and whether or not they should be substantially increased in public areas. Not whether security guards or surveillance cameras are better. Both are affective, both can stop the rate of crime, and both can potentially insure the three Ss very well. But the obligation of the con is not to bring up other options, cause if that was so he could abuse that by saying we should increase satellite surveillance of people, or bring in the military to protect public areas. Once again, let's stay topical and let's have a discussion about the pros and cons of substantially increasing surveillance cameras in public areas and if it should happen. Off of his 4 argument: Okay, he likes to bring the issue of money, and I don't think it needs to be a huge issue, but if he wants it to be an issue then let's talk about the costs of a security guard to a camera. A good surveillance camera would be two to three thousand dollars. So for example…..a Target wants to increase security in a store. So they can either get two more surveillance cameras for a cost from about four to six thousand dollars or they can hire two security guards for $20 dollars an hour as my opponent said. Let's say a Target is open 6am-11pm. That would be 17 hours, 40 dollars each hour for the two shifts (more than two guys would hold the shifts). In that day alone it would be $680, for a 7 day week, it would be $4760. In nearly a week, the store would have paid the shifts for the security guards as much as they would for a surveillance camera. If he wants to bring up maintenance, then I'll include that, but that would be chump change to the amounts his security guard idea would bring up. The store could install many cameras even before touching the costs of what two shifts at security guard alone would cost. But even beyond the cost, surveillance cameras, will keep criminals off. If a criminal knows that a store is full of surveillance cameras they will be extremely less likely to commit a crime. But once again do not buy his counter-plan because this is not intended to be a comparison between anything he can bring up against surveillance cameras, but rather, once again, a discussion and debate only about surveillance cameras. Now moving on to my side of the debate. Against his attacks on my 1st contention: Safe is defined as dependable or trustworthy. It can also be defined as careful to avoid danger. I do accomplish increasing safe because by installing more surveillance cameras I install something that is dependable or trustworthy. I also, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, do what is careful to avoid danger. It keeps tabs on dangerous people, so that if they do commit acts in these public areas we discuss, they will get caught, and plus by using a surveillance camera you get a sure view of what happened in the crime, thus making it easier to catch, indict, and prosecute a criminal. He may try to bring up security guards again, but still that's not the point of this debate round, it's too discuss surveillance cameras. I think that they indeed SHOULD increase the number of surveillance cameras, because that would accomplish increasing safety, thus I'm doing what is right. Against his attacks on my 2nd contention: I grow tired of his security guard arguments because my obligation is not to prove why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. So I will prove why I do accomplish the three Ss. But I will not tell you why I do it better than security guards, because that is not my obligation. The resolution would have made it an issue if it was, but I do not have to continue comparing surveillance cameras to security guards. I accomplish the three Ss in this way. Safety is accomplished because of what I discussed in the paragraph just before this one, so look to those for how I accomplish safety. Security is accomplished, because security is can be defined as well founded-confidence of one's protection. There is no doubt that surveillance cameras can make one have well-founded confidence of one's protection. I have don't have to compare whether or not security guards do this better or worse, because that is not what the resolution asks. Finally, stability is found on the pro as well. Stability is defined as the state or quality of being stable. I do accomplish being stable because by having a structured system of surveillance cameras I have balanced stability. So because I provide and accomplish the three Ss it is shown that surveillance cameras are beneficial to society, therefore that's why I believe surveillance cameras in public areas, once again, should be substantially increased. Against his attack on my 3rd contention: Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. There is no set number, but the resolution implies that some camera were already in place, so I believe by increasing the number of them, I increase the potential of maintaining the three Ss. Also, pull through the points that he some what rebutted in other spots, that we don't have to discuss economics. It is a SHOULD resolution, not a plans and policy resolution. So in the end, I provide as to why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. I show how I get the three Ss of safety, security, and stability. We are here to debate surveillance cameras, and not security guards. Please do not accept his counter-plan because as I just stated in 3rd contention rebuttal that it is a SHOULD resolution, and not a plans and policy resolution. That is why I can only see a Pro vote at the end of this round

positive: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions." Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.

positive: The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals. Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.

positive: Should all cops have to wear body cameras No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.

positive: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance

positive: Should all cops have to wear body cameras I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings

positive: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras As my opponent stated, today"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be "fair". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered "legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of "right" and "justice" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of "justice". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their "unjust" (according to you) punishment.

positive: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses "In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information." This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; "For 12 months, Rialto"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, "the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants," the study team explains." https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. "In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion." The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as "must arrest" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can"t tell an officer he can"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don"t we replicate that study in real life?

positive: Crime cameras help deter crime "Facts about Crime cameras and the city of New Orleans". From the Office of Mayor Nagin - "These cameras help to identify who is involved with specific crimes and provide a deterrent to those who know the cameras are installed."

positive: If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue. Cameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.

positive: Crime cameras Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.

positive: Crime cameras Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety

positive: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: "Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.

positive: Police Brutality The American ideology is typically peace through strength and this is unfortunate, Police today are gaining brutality charges more & more and honestly if police didn't continue to use brutality then people would stop questioning the officer's judgment, if they ployed in a more peaceful matter then we would be in a more peaceful environment where citizens & authorities

positive: Police Brutality Happy debating! Police officers using excessively violent means to deal with criminal and even non-criminal activity is not how the men and women that are supposed to "Protect and Serve" us should act. Race and ethnicity impact decisions.1. ) African Americans are assaulted or killed by police more than any other race and, according to Justice on Trial (2000), 70% of traffic stops involved black drivers yet only 17% of traffic crimes were actually committed by blacks. Severe acts toward a group based on race is not justice! Even criminals have Constitutional rights.1. ) Through the 6th Amendment the accused have the right to a fair trial to determine guilt. If officers take it upon themselves to dish out judgement, this right is taken from the accused. Violence breeds violence.1. ) When police use excessive force it causes reason for distrust and rebellion. These feelings lead even the innocent to act out.

positive: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, " Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of "fairness" unto other people. That was my point. ". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current "fair" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, "Why is murder wrong? ", the most common response will be, "Just because it is wrong". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?

positive: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras His refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror. The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were:1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Now onto a new assertion:4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. . http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360° body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant. Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.360° clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water Shock resistant They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only. Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video. Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force.

negative: Speed Cameras Speed may not be the only factor in causing road accidents, but it is a critical factor in how bad a...

negative: Should Citizens be allowed to own guns I think that all citizens who have completed a background check should be able to own guns to defend themselves.

negative: Boxing and Football Should we ban sports like boxing and football because of the damage they cause to athletes brains?

negative: Cameras in Courtrooms Televised trials will be an antidote to the hysterical and sensationalist coverage of trials that we...

negative: Cameras in Courtrooms Courts should be televised for the same reason that we see the proceedings in parliament on our tele...

negative: Speed Cameras Speed cameras produce additional benefits as improving technology allows them to be used for other p...

negative: Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Okay, I'll start with my opponent's case, move to mine, then I'll wrap it all up with some key voting issues in this round. Off of his 1 argument: He continues to uphold the idea that once a camera is put in a public area, that it is no longer public, but rather it becomes private. But you'll see as I defined private (not open or accessible to the general public) and as I defined public (open to all persons), that just because I put up a surveillance camera or several surveillance cameras in a public area, does not make it private. To be private is for something to not be open or accessible to the general public, and installing cameras does not take away public areas, in fact cameras keep the public safer. And just because someone thinks cameras are cramping their style does not mean you sacrifice the three Ss just so their style is not cramped. You cannot accept his 1st point because basic definitions and logic alone will tell you that just because I put a camera up in a public area, doesn't magically make it private area. Off of his 2 argument: First let's talk about the different worlds argument…. .we are debating whether or not surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. We are no debating which world is better, more cameras or more guards. We are not debating that. The con burden in the round is to prove why we should not put more cameras up, but instead my opponent uses smokescreen tactics to try and avoid the actual dialogue of the resolution we should be discussing. Since it is a should resolution, it appears to be more philosophy based, and not so much who provides a better plan. Let's get back to the pros and cons of surveillance cameras, and let's not do this cameras (vs) guards debate…. .because that is not what the resolution asks of us. Anyways, he brings up some economic arguments in this argument as well, but I'll discuss these in his 4 argument, so we can get to it all there. Off of his 3 and 4 argument: I need to touch on some major misconceptions and as a result, I will fuse my arguments against his 3 and 4 arguments into one long argument against both. Alright let's talk about some economics here. Even though it should not be cameras (vs) guards, I will show you why cameras are still more cost efficient. Okay, I do not really accept 10 cameras counter 2 security guards. But even so, the $4,760 dollars is based on how much they earn per week. That means multiple that by 52, and you will get the number the store has to pay the shifts of security guard every year. That number would be $247,520 dollars every year for two shifts at security guard. Whereas 10 cameras would only cost $20,000 dollars, maybe a little maintenance, but that can not counter the idea that 2 security guards cost more 12 times the amount of 10 surveillance cameras. In addition, as a report of job listings said on monster. com, a person who watches a surveillance camera is paid an average of 12 dollars per hour. So let's I even had 2 guys watching with 10 cameras all that cost together would cost $168,512. That is still dramatically less than the $247,520 dollars that two security guards alone would cost. Moreover, surveillance cameras can actually look at the entire store, whereas guards can only be in a certain little area at a time. Surveillance cameras do cost less and they do stop crime. So even though I believe we should you know……actually debate the resolution, I still provide why surveillance cameras are better, because they cost less, they can view of more of the store, thus stopping more crime, and that's why they are better than security guards. Off his counter-plan argument he made after the 4 argument: Forgive me if I actually wanted to debate the resolution. I think we should have some direct debate about surveillance cameras and once again the pros and cons of why they should be substantially increased in public areas. I think that we should just debate the resolution, but as he continues with this counter-plan, I continue to offer two arguments, that 1) I believe we should talk about surveillance cameras and not bring up anything you could think of in a counter-plan, and 2) I beat his counter-plan anyways, with the effectiveness of viewing the entire store, and costing way less than security guards would. He thinks I'm cheating him, because I'm not allowing him to make up some plan to go against mine, but I'm not. I got handed the job of defending surveillance cameras and why they should be substantially increased. That is what I have to do, that is the burden of the pro. You would be cheating me if you decided to try to throw up smokescreens to the resolution. But nevertheless, you still try to uphold this counter-plan and whether or not the judge accepts or not, I have efficiently beaten it. Moving on to my case…. . Off his attacks on my 1st contention: Surveillance do accomplish safety (dependable or trustworthiness), because they can view the whole store, the camera does not lie, it doesn't hold grudges, it doesn't have emotions, like a guard would, and a camera can only show the truth. Since it can only reveal and show the truth that makes it both dependable and trustworthy. Off his attacks on my 2nd contention: Of course cameras can't physically stop people. But the people assigned to watch the cameras can either stop them, they can call a manager, or call the police to take action. He pulls through his money totals, but I've shown why I win of those two. Plus, I like to point out that I don't ever have to get rid of security guards. He wants to get rid of surveillance cameras and only have security guards. But you see, the pro doesn't have to get rid of anything, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, I don't get rid of anything. Because in the end, I can have my cake and eat it too, whereas he can't. Off his attacks on my 3rd contention: Increasing implies getting more, so I'm trying to avoid that I'm trying to get more surveillance cameras. But since he offers no dictionary source for substantial and he previously agreed with mine earlier, my definition is still upheld as the one in this round. I will answer all of your questions in my voting issues right now. Voting Issues: Why the number of cameras now isn't working, how to fix it, and how it will impact the company/place in a positive way? (I don't of course have numbers for each public place, but I can tell this is talking about a general impact, and by increasing the number of cameras I potentially insure the three Ss more. ) Why should this happen? (Because more surveillance cameras can bring more safety, security, and stability to society as I've explained throughout this debate round. ) How is this going to help? (By installing more cameras, more criminals are caught, less shoplifting will happen, and it will make people behave in a more civilized and un-criminal manner in public areas) How is this the best solution? (The resolution never specifies that I have to offer the best solution in the debate, but rather asks the question should this happen, as in…is this a good thing. And yes, I do believe substantially increasing the number of surveillance cameras is good for society. More so, you're trying to compare guards to cameras again, but once again, that shouldn't be the debate, but even if it was I provide why cameras are better, but as I said before the Pro doesn't have to get rid of guards, I can have both them and cameras. But the Con's plan is essentially asking to eliminate cameras, and have the guards. So that's just another reason on top of the effectiveness and the cost that I win that part of the debate. ) CLOSING STATEMENT: I truly do believe you must vote pro, I win the round at it's pure core, and I win it even with his counterplan. I urge the judges to look at the arguments and see that the Pro does win the round.

negative: Speed Cameras Speeding causes accidents because it reduces the amount of time a driver has to react to changing co...

negative: Are police to brutal I think that people are too brutal cause they are and who's with me black cop white cop same thing. Bye By: Xavier Wallace

negative: Are police to brutal Bow down for the king. We Jews are masters are debating. #ownage #pwnage You Just got Jewed

negative: Universal Basic Income IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...

negative: Universal Basic Income I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more "buIIshit jobs" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the "negative incentives" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These "negative incentives" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered "below" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...

negative: Universal Basic Income As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal "Workfare" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of "roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- "The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries "overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...

negative: Red Light Cameras My position is against red light cameras. Anyone who disagrees with me, please present your case.

negative: meat is bad for your body "and you can eat tofu and cheese to get protein" he never refuted my statement, i said, "meat is most definitely good for your body" my point still stands strong. he simply gave other examples of protein. "I just have 1 word: McDonalds" my opponent said this... mcdonalds? the resolution says "meat" mcdonalds does not have real meat. they used a proccessed beef mixed with lots of hormones. it is not real meat. my opponent fails to argue that meat is bad for your body. thankyou, vote neg!

negative: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

negative: Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School I think that they should bring tasers that must only be able to charge if the teacher enters a code or uses a key or something. A gun can be taken by a student if left for only a second and students would be capable of using it. A gun can KILL people. A taser can STUN people. There should not be killings at schools. We dont even need tasers! We just need ONE police officer with guns AND tasers and your fine! If that is not enough protection we can give the teachers devices that can page the police officer silently. Then the police officer(s) can come to where they are at. We could also have multiple police officers if that is not enough. Boom.

negative: Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to motorists Motorists don’t just look down at their speedometer once to check their speed when a speed camera is nearby. A survey by Safe Speed revealed that 75% of drivers checked their speed at least 3 times over an 8 second period as they drive past a camera. This means that 40% of a driver’s time is spent looking down at the speedometer and not at the road. Assuming the camera has been sited due to a history of accidents, it has the opposite of the intended effect if less time is spent observing potential hazards and other cars. Travelling at 30mph, looking down at the speedometer for just 1 second means the vehicle has travelled 13 metres (42ft) without the driver concentrating properly on the road. (This includes half a second to glance down and half a second for your eyes to focus and re-focus). That is a total of 39 metres travelled if you check your speedo three times http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue

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: Police profiling Since this topic isn't really all that complex, and since you have set the precedent of making a less extensive case for your side, I will follow suit. You say that if profiling were used for crimes committed by white teenage males, I "could end up with a life sentence for a crime that [I] didn't commit simply because [I was] in the wrong place at the wrong time". This is a flawed argument for two reasons: First, because profiling IS used against white male teenagers, just as much as it is against anyone else, and my criminal record is just as clean as it was the day I was born. Second, because profiling doesn't bring about convictions on its own. What we're talking about here is not, "You're black, so you must be guilty because the witnesses agree it was a black person who did it", but rather, "You're black, so we'd rather spend our time looking into our suspicions of you than this white guy over here, because our witnesses agree it was a black man who did it." This is not the terrible, evil practice you try to make it out to be. It makes simple, logical sense; and without it, police would lack one of the most effective tools they have for narrowing down the field of suspects.

negative: Police Profiling My opponent contends the following:I would be against profiling against blacks for any reason. .. I am only in favor of to a very strict sense of profiling because a small group of a radical religious group has declared war on the U. S. I would want profiling protection against this group to prevent the types of things that have happened in the past from happening again. Note that I only used black people as an example. My opponent contends that we can have protection by discriminating against religious radicals. Sorry, but we have a freedom of religion in America. Furthermore, there are peaceful Muslims. If you want to say that all Muslims are bad; then you are sadly mistaken. There are also some religious radicals in the Christian side as well and with other religions. Thus, you argument is fallacious. How would discriminating against Arabs be good? Most Muslim Arabs live in the middle east--in fact, MOST Muslims are NOT Arabs! So therefore, your opinion is flawed even more.

negative: States ought not possess nuclear weapons Nations should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons in self defense

negative: Should schools allow phones Phones should be allowed in school in case of a emergancy

negative: Should immigrants in the United States illegally who are parents of us minors be deported Border Terror DA Links Border Border surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorism Wilson 2/26 (Reid Wilson, covers national politics and Congress for The Washington Post and author of Read In, The Post"s morning tip sheet on politics. He's a former editor in chief of The Hotline, the premier tip sheet on campaigns and elections and a graduate of The George Washington University, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border", February 26 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com...) A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. [Drone strike kills senior al-Shabab official in Somalia] Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Border surveillance is k2 preventing terrorism Smarick et al. 12 (Kathleen Smarick and Gary D. LaFree of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland. 11/12 "Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States: Lessons for Protecting against Dangerous Entrants" START, http://www.start.umd.edu... CCC) An essential step in this project was determining the frequency and dynamics of border crossings by individuals who conducted or who wanted to conduct terrorism-related activities in the United States. Towards that goal, the project built upon the existing holdings of the American Terrorism Study (ATS) in this effort. The ATS, housed at the University of Arkansas, catalogs and systematically codes information on more than 300 Federal court cases involving Federal terrorist charges since 1980 and, following a review of other possible resources, proved to be the most useful starting point for compiling open-source, quantitative data on terrorist border crossings. Since 1989, the American Terrorism Study (ATS) has received lists of court cases and associated indictees that resulted from an official FBI terrorism investigation spanning 1980 through 2004. Housed at the University of Arkansas" Terrorism Research Center in Fulbright College (TRC), the ATS now includes almost 400 cases from the FBI lists. Of these, approximately 75% of cases have complete court documentation, and almost all of those collected have been coded into the ATS database, while the ATS team continues to track new cases by collecting, reviewing, and coding new and additional court documentation. The ATS includes terrorism incidents and attacks, thwarted or planned terrorism incidents sometimes referred to as preventions, material support cases for terrorism, general terrorism conspiracies, and in some cases, immigration fraud; the common denominator among all ATS events is that the FBI investigated these events as terrorism-related incidents. During preliminary research for this project, court records from 378 terrorism cases found in the ATS dataset were reviewed for information on potential border crossing events related to terrorism cases. The documents for each court case were manually reviewed by researchers to determine whether the collected records reported that one of the defendants or accomplices in a case crossed a U.S. border at some point. Thirty-eight percent of the reviewed cases"145 cases"from 1980 through 2004 were found to either have: " direct mention of a border crossing in the court documents, or " a link to a terrorism incident that involved a known border crossing, either before or after an incident. After compiling this list of court cases for inclusion, each identified court case was then linked to a criminal incident involving terrorism charges. Initial reviews revealed a connection to a border-crossing event in a total of 58 successful terrorist attacks, 51 prevented or thwarted attacks, 26 material support cases, 33 immigration fraud incidents, and 4 general terrorism conspiracies. Additional reviews of relevant information on indictees and their activities resulted in a reduction in the number of successful terrorist attacks associated with these individuals to a total of 43. Appendix 2 provides more details on the data collection process and how a reliable collection methodology was established to create the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing Dataset (USTBC), using the ATS as a starting point. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 12 Systematic evaluation by the research team revealed that the American Terrorism Study is a reliable and useful resource for identifying individuals associated with terrorist attacks or terrorist criminal cases (such as conspiracies) and for determining which of these individuals crossed U.S. borders in advance of or in the wake of their terrorism-related behavior. This is largely because the ATS is based on court documents, which among sources of data on terrorism are the most likely to reference relevant border crossing activity. The Global Terrorism Database, which is based primarily on media sources, can serve a supporting role in this research, but the ATS is the primary source allowing for construction of a new, relational database on U.S. Terrorist Border Crossings (USTBCs). That being said, it is important to recognize that the ATS is not a perfect data source. As noted above, its contents are limited to individuals and information related to court cases in which one or more defendant was charged with Federal terrorism charges. As such, the contents of ATS clearly represent a subset of all terrorists or attempted terrorists in the United States, as it systematically omits those who: " were never arrested or faced any charges, " were charged with offenses not directly related to terrorism, " were charged at the non-Federal level, or " were engaged in dangerous activity that does not meet the FBI"s definition of a terrorism case. Throughout this project, the research team was careful to respect the limitations of this data collection and to draw conclusions that recognize that the border crossing events included in this project likely represent a non-representative subset of all border crossing attempts by terrorists or intended terrorists. Despite these limitations, though, the data that was built upon the baseline of ATS provides important insights into the nexus between border crossings and terrorism. The U.S. Terrorism Border Crossing Dataset The final versions of the codebooks used to develop the U.S. Terrorist Border Crossing (USTBC) data collection are presented in Appendix 3. Based upon knowledge gained from pilot efforts (as discussed above and in Appendix 2), the project resulted in two codebooks"one focused on dynamics of a bordercrossing event involving someone associated with a Federal terrorism court case, and another focused on the characteristics of the individuals associated with Federal charges who were involved in the bordercrossing event. Data collection for the USTBC lasted for approximately one year and was primarily conducted by research assistants at the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.3 The resultant data that comprise the USTBC are available in Appendix 4. Table 4 provides a snapshot summary of these data, which include detailed information on the location of an attempted crossing, the timing of a crossing relative to attempted or actual terrorist activity, the origin or destination of an attempted crossing, and more. The data also include specific information on border crossers, including their citizenship status, their criminal history, and key demographics (including level of education, marital status, etc.) Appendix 5 provides descriptive statistics from the border-crossing and border-crosser data. 3 Special thanks to Kim Murray and Summer Jackson of the Terrorism Research Center for their efforts in combing through the courtcase material and assembling these data for the USTBC. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Border Crossings and Terrorist Attacks in the United States 13 Border Crossings Identified in USTBC Attempts to Enter the United States Of the 221 border crossings identified in this project as involving individuals who were indicted by the U.S. government in terrorism-related cases, the majority (129 crossings) involved an individual attempting to enter the United States, while the remainder (92 crossings) involved an individual attempting to exit the United States. Eighty-seven percent of the attempted border crossings were successful, rather than being thwarted by law enforcement or foiled by some other events or developments. Additional discussion on the nature of successful crossings versus those who were apprehended at the border is presented below. Among those attempts to enter the United States, the most frequent origin for these crossing efforts was Canada.4 But, as Figure 2 illustrates, such attempted entries originated from all corners of the world. US Border Patrol proves that surveillance is key to anti-terror efforts Stamey 14 (Barcley; DOMESTIC AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND HOMELAND SECURITY: SHOULD AMERICANS FEAR THE EYE IN THE SKY; March 2014) The leading national agency currently using drones to combat a wide range of domestic threats is U.S. Customs and Border Protection. With its fleet of seven MQ-1 Predators and three MQ-1 Guardians"Predators modified for marine surveillance"CBP 26 is at the forefront of large-scale drone operations. With an annual budget exceeding $11 billion, CBP is well equipped for protecting our national security while combating potential terrorist threats.55 But how efficiently are those funds being used, and what is meant by effectiveness? According to Merriam-Webster, effectiveness is "producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect or result."56 Ultimately, that desired result is safe international borders. Accomplishing this result involves the apprehension of illegal immigrants, interdiction of illicit drugs, and prevention of terrorist infiltration, which CBP does quite well, but with respect to UAS, effectiveness must be viewed on a much broader scale. This section takes into account the size of CBP, its operational budget, and couples it with published results. According to CBP, the primary mission of drone use is "anti-terrorism by helping to identify and intercept potential terrorists and illegal cross-border activity."57 CBP uses its Predators and Reapers to accomplish this goal through human detection and tracking, surface asset coordination, and threat detection through IR sensors in multiple scenarios. Previously mentioned sensor suites allow the Predator to detect movement along the border, identify actual personnel numbers, and track the location of threats all while being unobserved to the individuals on the ground. With their long loiter times, Predators allow officials to monitor gaps along the border while maximizing the efforts of ground personnel in actual interdiction missions. After witnessing the functionality of actual Predator operations in Afghanistan, this author realizes the value in having high definition video sensors overhead during dangerous operations. This type of technology certainly has a place in homeland security missions, and future capabilities will provide a clear advantage to U.S. personnel in combating border security. This force multiplier mindset is one CBP has adopted and publicizes regularly to justify the success of its drone program. Long loiter times, remote area access, and flexibility during National Special Security Events are common claims. Border security stops terrorism Zuckerman, Bucci, Carafano, no date (Jessica Zuckerman, Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policyj and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Vice President for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, and the E. W. Richardson Fellow, 13, 7-22-2013, "60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org... CCC) Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser"April 2013. Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser were arrested in April 2013 for attempting to carry out an attack on a Via Railway train travelling from Canada to the U.S. The attack, authorities claimed, was supported by an al-Qaeda element in Iran, although there is currently no evidence that it was state-sponsored.[205] The exact route of the targeted train has not been identified, and Iranian authorities vehemently deny that al-Qaeda is operating within Iranian borders. Esseghaier and Jaser have been charged in Canada with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group, participating in a terrorist group, and conspiring to interfere with transportation facilities for the benefit of a terrorist group. Esseghaier has also been charged with participating in a terrorist group, and both men face up to life in prison.[206] The two men are awaiting trial. Chiheb Esseghaier wants to represent himself, basing his defense on the Quran instead of on the Canadian criminal code, which has caused delays in the proceedings.[207] Continued use of border surveillance technology is crucial to the detection of and response to threats on the border Haddal 10, Specialist in Immigration Policy, 8/11/10 (Chad C. Haddal, Congressional Research Service report, August 11, 2010, "Border Security: The Role of the U.S. Border Patrol" https://www.fas.org..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) Perhaps the most important technology used by the Border Patrol are the surveillance assets currently in place at the border. The program has gone through several iterations and name changes. Originally known as the Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS), the program"s name was changed to the America"s Shield Initiative (ASI) in FY2005. DHS subsequently folded ASI into the Secure Border Initative (SBI) and renamed the program SBInet Technology (SBInet). Once it is beyond the pilot phase, SBInet will, according to DHS, develop and install "new integrated technology solutions to provide enhanced detection, tracking, response, and situational awareness capabilities."19 The other program under SBI is the SBI Tactical Infrastructure program, which, according to DHS, "develops and installs physical components designed to consistently slow, delay, and be an obstacle to illegal cross-border activity."20 In the late 1990s, the Border Patrol began deploying a network of Remote Video Surveillance (RVS) systems (i.e., camera systems), underground sensors, and the Integrated Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database into a multi-faceted network designed to detect illegal entries in a wide range of climate conditions. This Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) attempted to ensure seamless coverage of the border by combining the feeds from multiple color, thermal, and infrared cameras mounted on different structures into one remote-controlled system with information generated by sensors (including seismic, magnetic, and thermal detectors). When a sensor is tripped, an alarm is sent to a central communications control room at a USBP station or sector headquarters. USBP personnel monitoring the control room screens use the ICAD system to re-position RVS cameras towards the location where the sensor alarm was tripped (although some camera positions are fixed and cannot be panned). Control room personnel then alert field agents to the intrusion and coordinate the response. Information gathered from surveillance activities is key to any effective response to terrorist threats along the border Fisher 12, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief, 5/8/12 (Michael, Department of Homeland Security, "Written testimony of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher for a House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security hearing titled "Measuring Border Security: U.S. Border Patrol"s New Strategic Plan and the Path Forward."" http://www.dhs.gov...; accessed 7/15/15 JH@ DDI) Information gathered from reconnaissance, community engagement, sign-cutting and technology together provide situational awareness and intelligence and helps us to best understand and assess the threats we face along our borders. Information and intelligence will empower Border Patrol leadership and front line agents to get ahead of the threat, be predictive and proactive. Integration denotes CBP corporate planning and execution of border security operations, while leveraging partnerships with other federal, state, local, tribal, and international organizations. Integration of effort with these organizations will ensure we bring all available capabilities and tools to bear in addressing threats. Lastly, through rapid response, we will deploy capabilities efficiently and effectively to meet and mitigate the risks we confront. Put simply, rapid response means the Border Patrol and its partners can quickly and appropriately respond to changing threats. Goal 1: Secure America"s Borders The 2012 Strategic Plan has two interrelated and interdependent goals. In the first goal, the Border Patrol will work with its federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners to secure America"s borders using information, integration and rapid response in a risk-based manner. There are five objectives within this goal: Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States Manage Risk Disrupt and Degrade Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) Whole-of-Government Approach Increase Community Engagement I. Prevent Terrorists and Terrorist Weapons from Entering the United States The current risk environment is characterized by constantly evolving threats that are both complex and varying, and the Border Patrol must strategically apply intelligence to ensure that operations are focused and targeted against the greatest threats. The Border Patrol"s ability to prevent and disrupt such threats is enhanced through increased information sharing and operational integration, planning, and execution with our domestic and foreign law enforcement partners. Integration with our federal, state, local, tribal, and international partners" intelligence and enforcement capabilities into the planning and execution of CBP operations is critical to our ability to secure our nation"s borders. The use of necessary surveillance technology is key to the identification and prevention of terrorist threats on the border Office of Border Patrol 4, September 2004 (THE OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, US CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, "National Border Patrol Strategy" http://www.au.af.mil..., accessed 7/15/15 JH @ DDI) The Border Patrol currently uses a mix of agents, information, and technology to control the border. The Border Patrol"s ability to establish situational awareness, monitor, detect, respond to, and identify potential terrorists, instruments of terrorism, and criminals relies heavily on interdiction and deterrence-based technology. Having the necessary technology to support the Border Patrol priority and traditional missions cannot be overstated. In the future, there must be continued assessment, development, and deployment of the appropriate mix of personnel, technology, and information to gain, maintain, and expand coverage of the border and ensure that resources are deployed in a cost-effective, efficient fashion. Technology which enhances operational awareness and effectiveness includes camera systems for day/ night/infrared work, biometric systems such as IDENT/IAFIS, processing systems like ENFORCE, sensoring platforms, large-scale gamma X-rays, and aerial platforms, and other systems. Technologies requiring modernization include wireless and tactical communications and computer processing capabilities. Coordination between Border Patrol and inspectional personnel at the ports of entry ensures the most efficient use of trained personnel and technology. In the future, the Border Patrol will take advantage of the targeting and selectivity tools made available in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the National Targeting Center. The continued testing, evaluation, acquisition, and deployment of appropriate border enforcement technologies will be pursued vigorously so that the maximum force-multiplier effect is achieved in support of both the priority and traditional missions. Any gap in security on the border allows international terror groups to come into the United States Wilson 15 [Reid Wilson, 2/26/15, covers national politics for the Washington Post, "Texas officials warn of immigrants with terrorist ties crossing southern border," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com... jf] A top Texas law enforcement agency says border security organizations have apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years, and while a surge of officers to the border has slowed the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants, it"s costing the state tens of millions of dollars. In a report to Texas elected officials, the state Department of Public Safety says border security agencies have arrested several Somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-Shabab, the terrorist group that launched a deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, another Somalia-based group once funded by Osama bin Laden. Another undocumented immigrant arrested crossing the border was on multiple U.S. terrorism watch lists, the report says. According to the report, one member of al-Shabab, apprehended in June 2014, told authorities he had been trained for an April 2014 suicide attack in Mogadishu. He said he escaped and reported the planned attack to African Union troops, who were able to stop the attack. The FBI believed another undocumented immigrant was an al-Shabab member who helped smuggle several potentially dangerous terrorists into the U.S. Authorities also apprehended immigrants who said they were members of terrorist organizations in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. The Department of Public Safety said the report, first published by the Houston Chronicle, was not meant for public distribution. "[T]hat report was inappropriately obtained and [the Chronicle was] not authorized to possess or post the law enforcement sensitive document," department press secretary Tom Vinger said in an e-mail. U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to requests for comment. The department said it had come into contact in recent years with "special interest aliens," who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. Those arrested include Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Pakistanis. In all, immigrants from 35 countries in Asia and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years in the Rio Grande Valley. The department says there is no known intelligence that specifically links undocumented immigrants to terrorism plots, but the authors warn it"s almost certain that foreign terrorist organizations know of the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. "It is important to note that an unsecure border is a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds," Vinger said. "And it would be naive to rule out the possibility that any criminal organizations around the world, including terrorists, would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our country"s international border." Maximized surveillance on the border is key to stopping terrorism Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., jf] One of the unexpected results of our study was recognition of the importance of networked intelligence in elaborating objectives for and measuring effectiveness of border security.11 This came about for many reasons. First, all of the focus missions are best understood in national terms: Border security contributes significantly to several high-level national objectives, but results depend sensitively on interactions with and the performance of other federal and local agencies, as well as economic and demographic conditions outside of DHS"s control. Second, national-level effectiveness depends not just on individual component or agency effectiveness but also on components" ability to share information and work collaboratively, i.e., to network. This is perhaps most obvious with respect to preventing terrorism, in that individuals might enter the country who are vaguely suspicious but who cannot reasonably be arrested at the border. Responsibility for follow-up then transfers to, e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, the FBI"s ability to follow up"either immediately or when further information emerges"might depend critically on information collected and effectively transferred by border agencies to the FBI. The word "effectively" is key because all agencies are deluged with data. The 9/11 Commission"s report dramatized the consequences of ineffectiveness: It is not that information for apprehending the perpetrators did not exist, but rather that the dots were not connected and the relevant agencies did not cooperate well (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004). Third, national-level law enforcement also depends on the effectiveness of the justice system, including the ability to convict and punish. That, in turn, often depends on authorities being able to construct an extensive, fact-based story of criminal behavior from which, cumulatively, guilt can reasonably be inferred by a jury. Fourth, the nature and quality of information collected by border-security components, the consistency with which it is collected, and the effectiveness with which the data are both transferred to national databases and"where appropriate"highlighted in cross-agency actions, are leverage points for improved national-level effectiveness, especially in relation to terrorism- or drug-related functions. Border-security eff orts sometimes will query detected travelers against data sets of known or suspected terrorists or criminals. This is especially relevant at ports of entry, ports of egress in some modes, and in cases in which border enforcement detains an illegal crosser. In other settings, border-enforcement agencies collect as much information as possible on individuals, their conveyances, license plates, accounts, and other records of persons detained for crossing illegally but for whom no prior records exist. The same is true in the maritime regions when individuals are arrested for illegal drug smuggling or illegal migrant smuggling. The collected information can become future tactical intelligence (and used in prosecutions) if the detained person becomes involved in criminal or terrorist functions at a later date. Discussions with component agencies indicate that this is an important capability to measure. Technologically, it is even possible to tag individuals so that subsequent surveillance within the United States (or another country) is possible.12 Border surveillance prevents terrorist groups from attempting attacks Willis et al 10 [Henry H. Willis, 2010, director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center, with Joel B. Predd, Paul K. Davis and Wayne P. Brown, RAND.org, "Measuring the Effectiveness of Border Security Between Ports-of-Entry", http://www.rand.org..., pg 19, jf] The principal contributions that border security makes to counterterrorism relate to preventing certain kinds of terrorist attacks dependent on flows into the country of people or materials. These contributions can be illustrated by considering what opportunities exist to disrupt terrorist attacks while they are being planned and orchestrated. Through a number of planning efforts, DHS and its components have developed detailed planning scenarios of terrorist events (DHS, 2006). Each of these scenarios has been deconstructed into attack trees that are useful for considering how DHS border-security programs contribute to terrorism security efforts. In their most generic form, these attack trees specify dimensions of attack scenarios with respect to building the terrorist team, identifying a target, and acquiring a weapon (see Figure 4.1). This decomposition of attack planning provides a structure around which to consider how interdiction, deterrence, and networked intelligence contribute to preventing terrorist attacks and, thus, why it is relevant to measure these functions. DHS border-security eff orts focus on interdiction of terrorist team members and weapons or weapon components when they cross U.S. borders. Examples of initiatives that are intended to enhance these capabilities include the Secure Border Initiative, the acquisition of Advanced Spectroscopic Portals for nuclear detection, the Secure Communities Initiative, and US-VISIT. In addition, it is often pointed out that, when border-security measures are perceived to be effective, terrorists groups may be deterred from attacking in particular ways, or possibly from attacking at all. This could result from awareness of what type of surveillance is occurring or the capability of interdiction systems. In either case, deterrence refers to the judgment of terrorists that they will not be successful, leading them to choose another course of action. Finally, many border-security initiatives also contribute information to the national networked-intelligence picture. For example, the Secure Communities Initiative has implemented new capabilities to allow a single submission of fingerprints as part of the normal criminal arrest and booking process to be queried against both the FBI and DHS immigration and terrorism databases. This effort makes it easier for federal and local law enforcement to share actionable intelligence and makes it more difficult for terrorists to evade border-security efforts. Drones Drones are critical to combat bio- and chemical-terror Koerner 2015 (Matthew R, Duke University School of Law, J.D. expected 2015, "DRONES AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: REDEFINING EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY", 64 Duke L.J. 1129) Senator Dianne Feinstein, a staunch advocate of governmental surveillance n1 and Chairman of the 113th Congress's Senate Intelligence Committee, n2 recently found herself, rather ironically, as the target of surveillance. n3 One day at her home, Senator Feinstein walked to the window to check on a protest that was taking place outside. n4 Much to her surprise, a small drone n5 hovered on the other side of the window, only inches away, spying on her. n6 The drone immediately flew away. n7 Senator Feinstein's experience is just one example of drones being used for surveillance within the United States. But her story and others like it n8 have sparked significant controversy over the use of drones for domestic surveillance, which falls within a broader debate [*1131] on privacy and governmental surveillance programs. n9 Advocates of robust federal surveillance policies champion governmental surveillance as the only way to prevent terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States. n10 President Barack Obama defended these surveillance programs as ""modest encroachments on privacy'" that "strike the "right balance' between national security and civil liberties." n11 In comparison, privacy advocates envision these surveillance programs leading to a dystopian, totalitarian government watching over its citizenry - undetected but omnipresent. n12 References to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four n13 abound. n14 [*1132] Apart from the surrounding privacy-concerns debate, drones currently provide many practical benefits and their projected applications seem limitless. n15 Based on their obvious advantage of being unmanned, drones have the capability to conduct missions previously considered too risky, dangerous, or impracticable. These applications are also provided at continuously decreasing costs and with the latest technological sophistication, such as the capability to see through physical obstructions, to detect various chemical and biological agents in the air, to recognize human faces and license plates, and to fly in strategic, coordinated formations. n16 Drones provide effective surveillance of the borders Spagat 2014 (Elliot, "Drones replacing officers in Mexican border surveillance", Nov 13; www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20141113/drones-replacing-officers-in-mexican-border-surveillance) The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border. It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled " to surpass 18,000 " and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles. Under the new approach, Predator B aerial drones, used in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials with direct knowledge of the effort said on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts, who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes " perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or perhaps a drug-laden Hummer, they said. About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, while the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity " footprints, broken twigs, trash. About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as "change detection," since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, said R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol"s parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there"s not traffic, whether it"s tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." If the video shows the terrain unchanged, Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher calls it "proving the negative" " showing there isn"t anything illegal happening there and therefore no need for agents and fences. The strategy was launched without fanfare and is being expanded as President Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order by the end of this year to reduce deportations and enhance border security. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, applauded the approach while noting surveillance gaps still remain. "We can no longer focus only on static defenses such as fences and fixed (camera) towers," he said. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who coauthored legislation last year to add 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 350 miles of fencing to the southwest border, said, "If there are better ways of ensuring the border is secure, I am certainly open to considering those options." Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and from between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The first step is for Border Patrol sector chiefs to identify areas least likely to attract smugglers, typically those far from towns and roads. Analysts scour the drone videos at operations centers in Riverside; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Sierra Vista. After an initial survey, the drones return within a week for another sweep. Privacy advocates have raised concerns about drones since Customs and Border Protection introduced them in 2006, saying there is potential to monitor innocent people under no suspicion. Lothar Eckardt, the agency"s executive director of national air security operations, said law-abiding people shouldn"t worry and that cameras are unable to capture details like license plate numbers and faces on the ground. He looked on one September morning as a drone taxied down a runway in Sierra Vista, lifted off with a muffled buzz and disappeared over a rocky mountain range into a blue Arizona sky. About a dozen computer screens line the wall of their trailer, showing the weather, maps and real-time images of the ground below. Eckardt said there is "no silver bullet" for addressing border security but that using drones in highly remote areas is part of the overall effort. If there"s nothing there, he said, "let"s not waste the manpower here. Let"s focus our efforts someplace else, where they"re needed." Drones are necessary to protect the border Ingram 2013 (David, How drones are used for domestic surveillance, Jun 19, www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0619/How-drones-are-used-for-domestic-surveillance) The U.S. government has made no secret of its use of drones to monitor the United States border with Mexico. The Obama administration has been defending its surveillance tactics since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden released secret documents revealing a massive database of daily telephone records, as well as coordination between the NSA and social media companies. The programs are designed to target militants outside the United States who are suspected of planning attacks, but they inevitably gather some data on Americans, U.S. officials said. In a May speech, Obama defended the use of armed drones abroad but said the United States should never deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. The Justice Department had disclosed that two domestic law enforcement agencies use unmanned aircraft systems, according to a department statement sent to the Judiciary Committee and released on Wednesday by Grassley's office. The two are the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday asking why the Justice Department did not earlier mention the FBI's use of drones. At Wednesday's hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said she was concerned about the privacy implications of drone surveillance. "The greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drone, and the very few regulations that are on it today," Feinstein said. Mueller reiterated that drone use is rare. "It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs," he said. Mueller is due to retire when his term expires in September. Border drones effectively and efficiently monitor the border RussiaTimes "14 (November 13, 2014, http://rt.com..., 7-3-15) Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States" border with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in desolated areas the government agents can"t realistically patrol. The unmanned aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy R10; known internally as "change detection" R10; since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence R10; like footprints, broken twigs, trash R10; of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights, with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The program is expected to expand the the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "It"s not a comprehensive immigration solution or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people R10; plus maintenance staff R10; to operate, coming out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPB"s Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. "Instead, the question is: Why can"t we have more of them in my district?" Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the US-Mexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in the first half of the year. "Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones," McNeal said. "This is the kind of crisis where, if you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress." The agency"s "unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations," a CBP official told Nextgov. The president"s request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of agency drones to only nine. Domestic drones k2 solve for terrorism Bauer 13 (Max Bauer, of ACLU of Massachusetts 9-11-2013, "Domestic Drone Surveillance Usage: Threats and Opportunities for Regulation," https://privacysos.org... CCC) Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, are an emerging and rapidly-expanding development in domestic surveillance technology. [4] On Valentine"s Day 2012, President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, legislation authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop regulations to facilitate the growing usage of drones in domestic airspace. [5] Drones are best known for their use in military operations [6] including the use of weaponized drones for targeted killing. But drones have been used for domestic surveillance purposes for years [7] and their usage is expected to grow exponentially. [8] The FAA has issued 1,428 drone operator permits since 2007 (as of mid-February) and predicts there will be 10,000 drones deployed within the next five years. [9] A public information request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed that numerous universities and law enforcement agencies have been approved to use drones by the FAA. [10] Of course, the widespread use of drones for domestic surveillance raises serious privacy concerns. [11] Drones can be outfitted with high definition [12] and infrared cameras, [13] and even license plate readers. [14] Drones "present unique threats to privacy," in the words of one privacy advocate. [15] Why? They are smaller " potentially insect-sized, [16] can fly longer " perhaps soon in perpetuity, [17] and are not bound by the historical, practical check on law enforcement excesses we've had as a result of limited police resources. [18] In a seminal 1890 law review article aptly-titled The Right to Privacy, future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis recognized that "instantaneous photographs" have invaded the secret precincts of private and domestic life"Of the desirability " indeed of the necessity " of some such protection there can, it is believed, be no doubt." [19] Brandeis and his co-author Samuel Warren were ahead of their time when they wrote that article but even they couldn"t foresee anything like the domestic surveillance schemes that have arisen over a century later. Drones Used in Massachusetts and Response to Boston Marathon Bombings. Late in 2012, the Boston Globe reported that a SWAT team in Massachusetts had filed an application with the FAA for a drone. [20] As of April 2013, there were no police drones yet in Massachusetts but Waltham-based defense contractor Raytheon was flying many of them in testing capacities. [21] Surveillance and war contracting companies hope to expand their market from military to domestic law enforcement. [22] Following the explosion of two bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, parts of the city shut down as the search for a suspect continued, prompting Ron Paul to write: "This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself." [23] Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told the public shortly afterward that he seeks more surveillance cameras (there are already hundreds) in downtown Boston. [24] And further, he said, he wants to have drone surveillance for next year"s marathon. [25] Drones K2 stop terrorism Byman, 13 (Daniel L. Byman, Director of research at Center for Middle East Policy, 8/2013, http://www.brookings.edu... CCC) The Obama administration relies on drones for one simple reason: they work. According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban"top figures who are not easily replaced. In 2010, Osama bin Laden warned his chief aide, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who was later killed by a drone strike in the Waziristan region of Pakistan in 2011, that when experienced leaders are eliminated, the result is "the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced as the former leaders" and who are prone to errors and miscalculations. And drones also hurt terrorist organizations when they eliminate operatives who are lower down on the food chain but who boast special skills: passport forgers, bomb makers, recruiters, and fundraisers. Drones have also undercut terrorists" ability to communicate and to train new recruits. In order to avoid attracting drones, al Qaeda and Taliban operatives try to avoid using electronic devices or gathering in large numbers. A tip sheet found among jihadists in Mali advised militants to "maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts" and "avoid gathering in open areas." Leaders, however, cannot give orders when they are incommunicado, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible when a drone strike could wipe out an entire group of new recruits. Drones have turned al Qaeda"s command and training structures into a liability, forcing the group to choose between having no leaders and risking dead leaders Drones take out terrorist leaders Al-Haj, 15 (Ahmed Al-Haj, writer for the Stars & Stripes and AP the big story, 7/10/2015, http://www.stripes.com... CCC) Yemeni security and military officials say a suspected U.S. drone strike killed four al-Qaida members travelling by car in the coastal city of Mukalla. The officials say the airstrike took place on Friday night in Mukalla, the capital of Yemen's sprawling eastern Hadramawt province. The explosion was heard in some parts of the city. Al-Qaida's Yemen branch, considered to be the most dangerous offshoot of the terror network, has made gains in the province and captured Mukalla earlier this year. The officials say at least five other militants were wounded in the airstrike. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to reporters. Al-Qaida has profited from the turmoil that has engulfed Yemen, and U.S. drones have continued to target top al-Qaida leaders there. AT Retaliation AT: Retaliation Ayson flips neg- terrorism is not an existential risk Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, "After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects," Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33.7, Francis & Taylor) A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the @257;rst place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in signi@257;cant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-@257;rst century might bring would fade into insigni@257;cance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. No US nuclear retaliation Neely 13 (Meggaen Neely, The George Washington University Master of Arts (M.A.), Security Policy Studies 2012"2014 (expected) Baylor University Master of Arts (M.A.), Public Policy and Administration 2010"2012, Richard D. Huff Distinguished Masters Student in Political Science (2012) Baylor University Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science and Government, Research Assistant, Elliott School at George Washington University, Research Intern, Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) at Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Communications Intern at Federation of American Scientists Graduate Assistant at Department of Political Science, Baylor University, "Doubting Deterrence of Nuclear Terrorism", March 21, 2013, http://csis.org...) Because of the difficulty of deterring transnational actors, many deterrence advocates shift the focus to deterring state sponsors of nuclear terrorism. The argument applies whether or not the state intended to assist nuclear terrorists. If terrorists obtain a nuclear weapon or fissile materials from a state, the theory goes, then the United States will track the weapon"s country of origin using nuclear forensics, and retaliate against that country. If this is U.S. policy, advocates predict that states will be deterred from assisting terrorists with their nuclear ambitions. Yet, let"s think about the series of events that would play out if a terrorist organization detonated a weapon in the United States. Let"s assume forensics confirmed the weapon"s origin, and let"s assume, for argument"s sake, that country was Pakistan. Would the United States then retaliate with a nuclear strike? If a nuclear attack occurs within the next four years (a reasonable length of time for such predictions concerning current international and domestic politics), it seems unlikely. Why? First, there"s the problem of time. Though nuclear forensics is useful, it takes time to analyze the data and determine the country of origin. Any justified response upon a state sponsor would not be swift. Second, even if the United States proved the country of origin, it would then be difficult to determine that Pakistan willingly and intentionally sponsored nuclear terrorism. If Pakistan did, then nuclear retaliation might be justified. However, if Pakistan did not, nuclear retaliation over unsecured nuclear materials would be a disproportionate response and potentially further detrimental. Should the United States launch a nuclear strike at Pakistan, Islamabad could see this as an initial hostility by the United States, and respond adversely. An obvious choice, given current tensions in South Asia, is for Pakistan to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear launch on its territory by initiating conflict with India, which could turn nuclear and increase the exchanges of nuclear weapons. Hence, it seems more likely that, after the international outrage at a terrorist group"s nuclear detonation, the United States would attempt to stop the bleeding without a nuclear strike. Instead, some choices might include deploying forces to track down those that supported the suicide terrorists that detonated the weapon, pressuring Pakistan to exert its sovereignty over fringe regions such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and increasing the number of drone strikes in Waziristan. Given the initial attack, such measures might understandably seem more of a concession than the retaliation called for by deterrence models, even more so by the American public. This is not an argument against those technologies associated with nuclear forensics. The United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue their development and distribution. Instead, I question the presumed American response that is promulgated by deterrence advocates. By looking at possibilities for a U.S. response to nuclear terrorism, a situation in which we assume that deterrence has failed, we cast doubt on the likelihood of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike and hence cast doubt on the credibility of a U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike as a deterrent. Would the United States launch a nuclear weapon now unless it was sure of another state"s intentional sponsorship of nuclear terrorism? Any reasonable doubt of sponsorship might stay the United States" nuclear hand. Given the opaqueness of countries" intentions, reasonable doubt over sponsorship is inevitable to some degree. Other countries are probably aware of U.S. hesitance in response to terrorists" use of nuclear weapons. If this thought experiment is true, then the communication required for credible retaliatory strikes under deterrence of nuclear terrorism is missing. The threat of a nuclear retaliation is exaggerated " even stolen material can be easily traced Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) This gloomy picture overstates the difficulty of determining the source of stolen material after a nuclear terrorist attack. In the wake of a detonation, the possibility of stolen fissile material complicates the task of attribution"but only marginally. At the end of the Cold War, several countries"particularly in the former Soviet Union"confronted major nuclear security problems, but great progress has been made since then.40 Although no country has perfect nuclear security, today the greatest concerns surround just five countries: Belarus, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa.41 In addition, not all of those states are equally worrisome as potential sources of nuclear theft. Substantial concerns exist about the security of fissile materials in Pakistan and Russia (the latter if simply because of the large size of its stockpile), but Belarus, Japan, and South Africa would likely be quickly and easily ruled out as the source of stolen fissile material. Belarus has a relatively small stockpile of fissile material"approximately 100 kilograms of HEU42"so in the wake of a nuclear terrorist attack, it would be easy for Belarus to show that its stockpile remained intact.43 Similarly, Japan (one of the United States" closest allies) and South Africa would be keen to allow the United States to verify the integrity of their full stocks of materials. (In the wake of a nuclear terror attack, a lack of full cooperation in showing all materials accounted for would be highly revealing.) Iran is not believed to have any weapons-usable nuclear material to steal,44 although that could change. In short, a nuclear handoff strategy disguised as a loose nukes problem would be very precarious.45 No retaliation " international cooperation and limited suspects solve Lieber and Press 13 (*Keir A. Lieber and **Daryl G. Press, *Received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Associate Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, **Associate Professor in the Department of Government, Dartmouth College. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Why States Won"t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists", Summer 2013, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, Pages 80-104) There are at least five reasons, however, to expect that attributing a nuclear terrorist attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack. First, no terrorism investigation in history has had the resources that would be deployed to investigating the source of a nuclear terror attack"particularly one against the United States or a U.S. ally. Rapidly attributing the attack would be critical, not merely as a first step toward satisfying the rage of the victims but, more importantly, to determine whether additional nuclear attacks were imminent. The victim would use every resource at its disposal" money, threats, and force"to rapidly identify the source of the attack.47 If necessary, any investigation would go on for a long time; it would never "blow over" from the victim"s standpoint. The second reason why attributing a nuclear terror attack would be easier than attributing a conventional terrorist attack is the level of international assistance the victim would likely receive from allies, neutrals, and even adversaries. An attack on the United States, for example, would likely trigger unprecedented intelligence cooperation from its allies, if for no other reason than the fear that subsequent attacks might target them. Perhaps more important, even adversaries of the United States"particularly those with access to fissile materials"would have enormous incentives to quickly demonstrate their innocence. To avoid being accused of sponsoring or supporting the attack, and thus to avoid the wrath of the United States, these countries would likely go to great lengths to demonstrate that their weapons were accounted for, that their fissile materials had different isotopic properties than the type used in the attack, and that they were sharing any information they had on the attack. The cooperation that the United States received from Iran and Pakistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks illustrates how potential adversaries may be motivated to help in the aftermath of an attack and stay off the target list for retaliation.48 The pressure to cooperate after an anonymous nuclear detonation on U.S. soil would be many times greater.49 Third, the strong positive relationship between the number of fatalities stemming from an attack and the rate of attribution (as depicted in figures 1 to 3 above) suggests that the probability of attribution after a nuclear attack" with its enormous casualties"should be even higher. The 97 percent attribution rate for attacks that killed ten or more people on U.S. soil or that of its allies is based on a set of attacks that were pinpricks compared to nuclear terrorism. The data in those figures suggest that our conclusions understate the actual likelihood of nuclear attribution. Fourth, the challenge of attribution after a terrorist nuclear attack should be easier than after a conventional terrorist attack, because the investigation would begin with a highly restricted suspect list. In the case of a conventional terror attack against the United States or an ally, one might begin the investigation at the broadest level with the U.S. Department of State"s list of fifty-one foreign terrorist organizations. In the case of a nuclear terror attack, only fifteen of these FTOs have state sponsors"and only one sponsor (Pakistan) has either nuclear weapons or fissile materials. (If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, that number will grow to two, but there is no overlap between the terror groups that Pakistan supports and those that Iran assists.) Finally, any operation to detonate a nuclear weapon would involve complex planning and coordination"securing the weapon, learning to use it, planning the time and location of detonation, moving the weapon to the target, and conducting the attack. Even if only a small cadre of operatives knew the nuclear nature of the attack, the planning of a spectacular operation would be hard to keep secret.50 For example, six months prior to the September 11 attacks, Western intelligence detected numerous indications that al-Qaida was planning a major attack. The intelligence was not speci fic enough"or the agencies were not nimble enough"to prevent the operation, but the indicators were "blinking red" for months, directing U.S. attention to al-Qaida as soon as the attacks began.51 Turns Case Terrorism is used as a justification for increased surveillance " empirics prove and turns case Haggerty and Gazso 2005 (Kevin, Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta; Amber, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University, The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 30, No. 2 ( Spring, 2005), pp. 169-187 "Seeing beyond the Ruins: Surveillance as a Response to Terrorist Threats" JSTOR; accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) A climate of fear and anxiety helped ease the passage of such laws (Davis, 2001). However, a great deal of organizational opportunism was also at work. Many of the surveillance proposals adopted in the days after the attack were recycled from earlier legislative efforts. In previous incarnations these proposals had often been legitimated as essential for the international "war on drugs" or to address other crimes, such as money laundering. The September 11 th attacks gave the authorities a new and apparently unassailable legitimation for long-standing legislative ambitions. Before the dust had settled on Manhattan, the security establishment had mobilized to expand and intensify their surveillance capabilities, justifying existing proposals as necessary tools to fight the new war against terrorism. Ultimately, the police, military and security establishment reaped an unanticipated windfall of increased funding, new technology and loosened legislative constraints by strategically invoking fears of future attacks. There are several examples of such opportunism. Since at least 1999, when Congress initially turned down their request, the U.S. Justice Department has lobbied for the development of new "secret search" provisions. Likewise, prior to the attacks, the FBI and the National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee had a lengthy shopping list of desired surveillance-related measures including legal enhancements to their wiretapping capabilities, legal constraints on the public use of cryptography, and provisions for governmental agents to compel Internet service providers to provide information on their customers (Burnham, 1997). All of these proposals were recycled and implemented after the September 11th attacks now justified as integral tools in the "war on terrorism." New provisions requiring banks to exercise "due diligence" in relation to their large depositors were originally justified by the authorities as a means to counter the "war on drugs." The opportunism of many of these efforts was inadvertently revealed by an RCMP Sergeant when, during a discussion about new official antiterrorism powers to monitor financial transactions, he noted that: "We've been asking for something like this for four years. It's really our best weapon against biker gangs" [emphasis added] (Corcan, 2001). In Canada, the Federal Privacy Commissioner was particularly alarmed by the development of what he referred to as a "Big Brother database." This amounts to a detailed computerized record of information about Canadian travelers. Although justified as a means to counter terrorism, the data will be made available to other government departments for any purpose they deem appropriate. Such provisions raise the specter of informational "fishing expeditions." Indeed, the Canadian government has already indicated that this ostensible anti-terrorist database will be used to help monitor tax evaders and catch domestic criminals. It will also be used to scrutinize an individual's travel history and destinations, in an effort to try and determine whether they might be a pedophile or money launderer (Radwanski, 2002). While these are laudable goals, they also reveal how a host of other surveillance agendas have been furthered by capitalizing on the new anti-terrorism discourse. Lone wolf terror attacks are used to justify disproportionate increases in surveillance and military operations abroad Lennard, Senior News Analyst for Vice News, 10/27/14 (Natasha Lennard, Brooklyn-based Senior News Analyst for Vice News, VICE News, October 27, 2014, "'Lone Wolf' Terrorist Acts Will Be Used to Justify the Surveillance State" https://news.vice.com..., accessed 7/17/15 JH @ DDI) The phenomenon of individuals committing violent and murderous acts in the name of an ideology is nothing new in the US. The FBI's Operation Lone Wolf investigated white supremacists encouraging autonomous violent acts in the 1990s. Why, then, are we seeing pundits and politicians newly focus on the "lone wolf" category? There's no simple answer, but we can at the very least see that the old binary, distinguishing terror as the act of networked groups versus lone madman mass killings " a distinction that has tacitly undergirded post-9/11 conceptions of terrorism " doesn't serve the latest iteration of the war on terror. California Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, suggested that "the Internet, as well as certain specific Muslim extremists, are really firing up this lone-wolf phenomenon." Whether intentionally or not, the Senate Intelligence Committee chair performed a lot of political work with that one comment. Crystallizing "lone wolves" as a key threat domestically helps legitimize the US's current military operation against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. With or without established connections, the Islamic State's far-reaching tentacles of online influence encouraging individuals worldwide cement the group as a threat to the homeland " which is always useful for politicians struggling to legally justify another protracted war. In this way, attributing attacks to homegrown "lone wolves" is more useful for current US political interests than attributing them to madness alone. The assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Which is not to say that "lone wolf terrorist" is a flawed designation for attacks by ideologically motivated individuals. In many ways it seems apt, and any challenge is welcome to the all too basic distinction that imbues group terror with motive while dismissing individual acts as madness. The "lone wolf" straddles the ill-conceived gap between madman and terrorist node. It's an intersection all too complicated for the inexpert punditry of Fox News: "They are terrorist acts, to be sure," Megyn Kelly said about Canadian gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, adding "but this guy was also a nutcase." Furthermore, the assumption that terror acts were always borne of connected networks problematically buoyed domestic counter-terror efforts that saw entire communities profiled as potential threats. Under the premise that terror networks ran like arteries through US Muslim communities enabled an era of profile-driven preemptive policing that has been nothing short of racist. Entire mosques in New York were designated terrorist organizations to enable police surveillance. The NSA's meta-data collections claim justifiability on the premise that terror was locatable by tracing networks of communication. The "lone wolf" phenomenon should at least prompt the questioning of the sort of profile-based counter-terror efforts that assumed terror lurked in any network of Muslims, and that the mass hoarding of communications data was vital to national security. However, the rhetoric surrounding this type of domestic threat already bodes ill for civil liberties. If the hunt for terrorist networks has been plagued by ethnic profiling and overreaching spycraft, an established threat of "lone wolf" attacks gives a defensive imprimatur for unbounded NSA-style surveillance " anyone can wield a hatchet with ideological ire. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul said on This Week, finding such lone actors in advance of attacks is like "finding a needle in a haystack." And as Feinstein said the same day, "You have to be able to watch it, and you have to be able to disrupt them." As such, the era of the "lone wolf" terrorist does not only spell the end of the bunk distinction between motivated group and deranged individual. It ushers in the dawn of a new era of justification for our totalized state of surveillance and national security paranoia. Surveillance would increase after a terrorist attack Feaver 1/13/15 (Peter D., 1/13/15, Foreign Policy, "10 Lessons to Remember After a Terrorist Attack," Peter is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow @ Duke University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy, http://foreignpolicy.com..., 7/16/15, SM) In particular, it is striking how some of the things that were "obvious" in the days and weeks after 9/11, but then were gradually forgotten, have become obvious again:W06; Terrorists succeed when they are abetted by intelligence failures. Or, put another way, terrorists only need to get lucky once to "succeed," whereas counterterrorism has to be lucky all the time to "succeed."W06; Even robust intelligence and law enforcement may not guarantee 100 percent safety and security. By global standards " certainly by the standards of Western democracies " France has a particularly formidable counterterrorist structure. But it failed in this instance.W06; When terrorists succeed in an attack, citizens demand that the government do more to protect them " even if they have already been doing a lot. And steps that would have seemed heavy handed before the attack, say aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorists or visible demonstrations of presence by the security forces, are deemed not just tolerable but necessary. Moreover, savvy political leaders will understand that one of the benefits of a stronger official response is that it is a hedge both against dangerously stronger vigilantism and also against additional pressure from some segments of the public to do more than is wise. Terrorism leads to crackdowns History.com, Reaction to 9/11, http://www.history.com..., 2010 "Today," the French newspaper Le Monde announced on September 12, 2001, "we are all Americans." People around the world agreed: The terrorist attacks of the previous day had felt like attacks on everyone, everywhere. They provoked an unprecedented expression of shock, horror, solidarity and sympathy for the victims and their families. Citizens of 78 countries died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11, and people around the world mourned lost friends and neighbors. They held candlelight vigils. They donated money and goods to the Red Cross and other rescue and relief organizations. Flowers piled up in front of American embassies. Cities and countries commemorated the attacks in a variety of ways: The Queen Mother sang the American national anthem at Buckingham Palace"s Changing of the Guard, while in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro put up huge billboards that showed the city"s famous Christ the Redeemer statue embracing the New York City skyline. Meanwhile, statesmen and women rushed to condemn the attacks and to offer whatever aid they could to the United States. Russian president Vladimir Putin called the strikes "a blatant challenge to humanity," while German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder declared that the events were "not only attacks on the people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people." He added, "We will not let these values be destroyed." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien denounced the "cowardly and depraved assault." He tightened security along the border and arranged for hundreds of grounded airplanes to land at Canadian airports. Even leaders of countries that did not tend to get along terribly well with the American government expressed their sorrow and dismay. The Cuban foreign minister offered airspace and airports to American planes. Chinese and Iranian officials sent their condolences. And the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, visibly dismayed, told reporters in Gaza that the attacks were "unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable." "We completely condemn this very dangerous attack," he said, "and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president and to the American administration." But public reaction was mixed. The leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas announced that "no doubt this is a result of the injustice the U.S. practices against the weak in the world." Likewise, people in many different countries believed that the attacks were a consequence of America"s cultural hegemony, political meddling in the Middle East and interventionism in world affairs. The Rio billboards hadn"t been up for long before someone defaced them with the slogan "The U.S. is the enemy of peace." Some, especially in Arab countries, openly celebrated the attacks. But most people, even those who believed that the United States was partially or entirely responsible for its own misfortune, still expressed sorrow and anger at the deaths of innocent people. On September 12, the 19 ambassadors of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of the member nations. This statement of solidarity was mostly symbolic"NATO did not authorize any specific military action"but it was still unprecedented. It was the first time that the organization had ever invoked the mutual defense section of its charter (intended to protect vulnerable European nations from Soviet invasion during the Cold War). NATO eventually sent five airplanes to help keep an eye on American airspace. Likewise, on September 12 the United Nations Security Council called on all nations to "redouble their efforts" to thwart and prosecute terrorists. Two weeks later, it passed another resolution that urged states to "suppress the financing of terrorism" and to aid in any anti-terrorism campaigns. But these declarations of support and solidarity didn"t mean that other countries gave the United States a free hand to retaliate however, and against whomever, it pleased. Allies and adversaries alike urged caution, warning that an indiscriminate or disproportionate reaction could alienate Muslims around the world. In the end, almost 30 nations pledged military support to the United States, and many more offered other kinds of cooperation. Most agreed with George Bush that, after September 11, the fight against terrorism was "the world"s fight." Terrorists Hate US Al Qaeda Al Qaeda is expanding and plotting attacks against the West Hubbard 6/9/2015 (Ben, Al Qaeda Tries a New Tactic to Keep Power: Sharing It, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/middleeast/qaeda-yemen-syria-houthis.html) BEIRUT, Lebanon " After they routed the army in southern Yemen, fighters from Al Qaeda stormed into the city of Al Mukalla, seizing government buildings, releasing jihadists from prison and stealing millions of dollars from the central bank. Then they surprised everyone. Instead of raising their flags and imposing Islamic law, they passed control to a civilian council and gave it a budget to pay salaries, import fuel and hire teams to clean up garbage. The fighters receded into the background, maintaining only a single police station to arbitrate disputes. Al Qaeda"s takeover of Yemen"s fifth-largest city in April was the most direct indication yet that the group"s most potent regional affiliates are evolving after years of American drone strikes killing their leaders and changing to meet the challenge posed by the Islamic State"s competing and land-grabbing model of jihad. While the image of Al Qaeda has long been one of shadowy operatives plotting international attacks from remote hide-outs, its branches in Yemen and Syria are now increasingly making common cause with local groups on the battlefield. In doing so, they are distancing themselves from one of Osama bin Laden"s central precepts: That fighters should focus on the "far enemy" in the West and not get bogged down in local insurgencies. In recent weeks, the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen has allied with armed tribes to fight Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, putting that alliance on the same side of the country"s civil war as the United States and Saudi Arabia. In Syria, Qaeda-allied fighters are important members of a rebel coalition against President Bashar al-Assad that includes groups supported by the West. This strategy has clear benefits for a group that has long been near the top of the United States"s list of enemies by allowing it to build local support while providing some cover against the threat of foreign military action. But despite Al Qaeda"s increased involvement in local battles, American officials say the group remains committed to attacking the West, a goal that could be easier to plot from sanctuaries where it enjoys local support. Cooperating with others could also give Al Qaeda a long-term advantage in its competition with the extremists of the Islamic State, analysts said. Since its public break with Al Qaeda last year, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has stolen the jihadist limelight by seizing cities in Syria and Iraq and declaring a caliphate in the territory it controls. This has won it the allegiances of other militant cells from Libya to Afghanistan. The Islamic State has insisted that other groups join it or be considered enemies, a tactic that has alienated many in areas it controls. And its public celebration of violence, including the beheading of Western hostages, helped spur the formation of a United States-led military coalition that is bombing the group. Al Qaeda"s branches in Syria and Yemen have taken a different route, building ties with local groups and refraining from the strict application of Shariah, the legal code of Islam, when faced with local resistance, according to residents of areas where Al Qaeda holds sway. When Al Qaeda took over Al Mukalla in April, it seized government buildings and used trucks to cart off more than $120 million from the central bank, according to the bank"s director, Abdul-Qader Foulihan. That sum could not be independently verified. But it soon passed control to a civilian council, giving it a budget of more than $4 million to provide services, an arrangement that made sense to local officials seeking to serve their people during wartime. "We are not Qaeda stooges," said Abdul-Hakeem bin Mahfood, the council"s secretary general, in a telephone interview. "We formed the council to avoid the destruction of the city." While the council pays salaries and distributes fuel, Al Qaeda maintains a police station to settle disputes, residents said. It has so far made no effort to ban smoking or regulate how women dress. Nor has it called itself Al Qaeda, instead using the name the Sons of Hadhramaut to emphasize its ties to the surrounding province. One self-described Qaeda member said that the choice of name was deliberate, recalling that after the group seized territory in southern Yemen in 2011, the country"s military had mobilized to push it out with support from the United States. "We were in control for a year and six months, we applied God"s law, we created a small state and the whole world saw it, but they did not leave us alone," the man said in an interview with a Yemeni television station. "So we came here with the name the Sons of Hadhramaut, but the people here know who we are." American officials have long considered the terrorist group"s Yemeni branch, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous to the West. It has sought to carry out attacks against the United States, and it retains sophisticated bomb-making expertise. Now, Yemen"s civil war has given the group an opportunity to expand, analysts said. Can"t deter Al-Qaeda Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") The third type of terrorist who might prove undeterrable were they to acquire these weapons is Al Qaeda itself. Unlike terrorists who serve the liberation claims of a particular group of people, Al Qaeda does not depend for its support on a particular population who could be subjected to revenge or retribution following an attack. Thus the attackers on Afghan soil. Once Afghanistan had served its function as a base, it was dispensable as far as Al Qaeda was concerned. Since their goal is not the acquisition of power itself but the punishment of the United States and its strategic allies, they cannot be stopped by political negotiation, concession, or appeasement. Nor are they susceptible to the incentives that make some armed groups conform to the laws of war in order to achieve international recognition or legitimacy. This indifference to incentives and sanctions applies not merely to Al Qaeda but to any cult with charismatic psychopaths at its head. It is hard to see what political action a state could have taken to deter the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo before it released toxic agents in the Tokyo subway system. 9 Unlike political groups seeking liberation or national territory, these cults cannot be engaged politically, and since they are closed and conspiratorial, they are difficult to infiltrate and neutralize. The logic of deterrence that once kept state violence in some kind of check has no traction with loners and the cult leaders of global terrorism. Since they promise their followers eternal life, they create a cadre of undeterrables. Standard rationality doesn"t apply to Al-Qaeda " they cannot be deterred Ignatieff "4 (Michael Ignatieff, Canadian author, academic and former politician. has held senior academic posts at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Toronto, 2004, Princeton University Press, "the lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror") In the examples considered so far, it has become clear that where armed groups have a real prospect of obtaining recognition and statehood, they may be persuaded to abstain from terrorism. Where their success in this struggle depends on retaining the support of local populations, they may also conclude that restraint pays better than atrocity. But these incentives and restraining factors do not apply to all terrorist groups. No such factors discipline the conduct of Al Qaeda. They have no aspirations to statehood and therefore no incentive to play by any known rules. They do not serve a determinate population and are therefore unconstrained either by their supporters" moral code or by their vulnerability to reprisal. They even appear indifferent to casualties inflicted on Muslim populations who live or work in proximity to their targets. This is what makes them so dangerous. This is also why they cannot be engaged politically and must instead be defeated militarily. Al Qaeda is therefore a distinctive kind of terrorism, no longer in the service of a people"s freedom or in the name of the overthrow of a given state. The apocalyptic nihilists who attacked the United States on September 11 did not leave behind justifications, noble or otherwise, for their actions. They directed their propaganda and their justifications not at a specific state denying a claim to self-determination, but at the United States as the hated imperial capital of a materialistic, secular, and alien civilization. The so-called martyrs defended their actions in the language of Islamic eschatology, not in the language of rights. 33 Moreover, their intentions were apocalyptic, not political: to humiliate the archenemy of Islam and secure martyrdom in the process. It is difficult to see, in principle, how acts unaccompanied by demands can be accommodated politically. If the goal of terrorism is neither territory nor freedom, if its purpose is to strike a blow that asserts the dignity of Muslim believers while inflicting horror and death upon their enemies, then it is difficult to envisage a political response of any kind. Such an attack cannot be met by politics but only by war. Generic Biological realism explains terrorism " means it"s impossible to stop it Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Yet, even if al-Qaida is diminished, Islamic fundamentalist suicide attacks will continue to be executed by al-Qaida-inspired groups, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Taliban because they are an effective asymmetric tactic against some of the world"s most hardened security forces. Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorists have penetrated British, French, Israeli, and U.S. defenses, among others. Moreover, only suicide terrorists could have executed the September 11 attacks or penetrated the Israeli security corridor bordering the Palestinian Authority, because they alone could navigate the countless security obstacles and be capable of self-destructing at a precise location and time while causing the greatest damage. As Mustafa Alani puts it, "It"s what we call a thinking, walking bomb. He watches the whole scene [and] chooses the best time and best location."4 Suicide terrorism is the ultimate smart bomb, demonstrating unparalleled political commitment and personal resoluteness. Scholars have examined Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism primarily through the lens of international politics, economics, and cultural studies, and each offers important insights into the motivation and recruitment policies of groups that practice it. There is, however, another discipline that can make a useful contribution"the life sciences. We argue that the application of concepts and approaches from the life sciences yields new insights into (1) the causal context of Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism, (2) the motivation of suicide terrorists, and (3) policy approaches to subvert this form of terrorism. A consilient approach, incorporating ideas from the life sciences and the social sciences, can aid social scientists and policy analysts in addressing the problem of Islamic suicide terrorism.5 The life sciences can be a source of new analogies and examples that might help scholars and analysts to approach the problem in fresh ways and derive effective policies.6 Our argument is important for three reasons. First, understanding the motivations of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is critical for creating policies to stop them, ideally before they become terrorists. Second, our approach helps to illuminate why few Islamic fundamentalist terrorists defect and how policies may be crafted to promote defections. Finally, it advances the goal of consilience"that is, using insights from human evolution and ecology, as well as from the social sciences, to create a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of human behavior. In essence, consilient approaches bridge the gap between the life sciences and the social sciences. For the advancement of knowledge concerning human behavior, there may be no more important task than removing the barriers between the life sciences and the social sciences, which we believe will revolutionize both fields of study.7 The evolutionary structure of terrorist organizations makes them impossible to deter Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Alpha males try to resolve this inevitable tension through male bonding. By persuading non-alpha males that they are all "family," alpha males may be able to dampen intragroup tensions. Evolutionary psychology also helps to explain why this strategy will be effective. Humans evolved in small-group dominance hierarchies"principally the family and extended family hunter groups. Accordingly, the human mind is well suited for comprehending and bonding with small groups of dozens or, at most, 100 or 150 people.24 To be sure, humans may bond with larger units (e.g., a country), but that requires an extensive effort by the state (e.g., years of nationalistic education). In mimicking the family bond, male-bonded groups often assume the task of educating young males, providing another family-like service. Young people often embrace indoctrination into a belief system through a religion or an educational system, or the combination of the two, such as in madrassas.25 Emulating the family also makes the male-bonded group more resilient"harder to penetrate and to destroy"similar to the family or the mafia and suggests they must be targeted in unique ways. The dynamics described above are found among all societies, not only those of the Islamic world. Alpha males will seek to co-opt non-alpha males into male-bonded societies in which violence is controlled by alphas and guided toward out-groups, not in-groups (and especially not targeted toward the alphas). In this study, however, we limit ourselves to examining factors that we argue contribute to Islamic fundamentalist suicide terrorism. Of course, even within the Islamic world, individuals will possess other motivations to conduct suicide attacks. For example, there is evidence that at least some Iraqi male teenagers have been forced to train as suicide bombers under fear of reprisals against their families. Terrorism"s engrained in Islamic societies " it"s the only way for non-Alpha males to achieve status Thayer and Hudson "11 (Brad and Valerie, Thayer is a Professor of Political Science at Baylor, Hudson is the Professor of Political Science at Brigham Young. "Sex and the Shaheed: Insights from the Life Sciences on Islamic Suicide Terrorism" International Security, Vol 34 No 4. 2011) Baldly put, polygyny means mates for some men and none for others. And who will not obtain mates? It will not be those with advantages, but rather those who lack them. Non-alpha males will be the reproductive losers, and this gives them great motivation to use force, the sole area in which they possibly hold a reproductively relevant advantage over alpha males. Alpha males and non-alpha males understand the ramifications of polygyny for their relations: polygyny will heighten in-group violence against alpha males by non-alpha males absent a mechanism that directs this violence to an out-group. From the perspective of alpha males, suicide terrorism offers some interesting possibilities. A non-alpha male in a polygynous society with high levels of gender differentiation wants to find a way to project power, preferably through violence. In this way, he hopes to obtain greater social status and thus greater reproductive success. An alpha male in the same society wants to find a way to channel that violence to out-groups without allowing the nonalpha male to achieve social status through violence, which ultimately could threaten the interests of the alpha males. Suicide terrorism, sanctioned and applauded by religious belief, represents an attractive strategy in this context. If alpha males can persuade non-alpha males that (1) their violence should be directed to out-groups, (2) that thereby these non-alpha males will greatly increase their social status and make their families proud, but (3) they will have to die and experience their reproductive success vicariously through their kin, or in the afterlife, then the threat of in-group violence can be decreased. For some non-alpha males, becoming a shaheed is the most effective response to the human evolutionary conundrum produced by male dominance hierarchies, high levels of gender differentiation, and the scarcity of females resulting from polygyny.40 In 2003 Robert Pape found that among Islamic suicide terrorists, 97 percent were single and 84 percent were male. If one excludes the Kurdistan Workers" Party, which promotes gender equality, the gender ratio rises to 91 percent.41 These young men come predominantly from lower socio-economic strata of society than those involved in nonsuicide terrorism, despite the somewhat anomalous case of the September 11 attacks. Evolutionary psychology would predict that this subpopulation would be most susceptible to the lure of suicide terrorism. Islamic religious texts promise the shaheed seventy-two virgins in the afterlife. 42 Miller and Kanazawa note, "It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivate many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single."43 Failed suicide bombers may not admit to this temptation as motivation for their action, perhaps considering it too vulgar or impious. Nevertheless, it can be a key draw for a male contemplating poor reproductive prospects in this life. In March 2004, Husam Abdu (also Abdo), a sixteen-year-old failed suicide bomber captured at an Israeli checkpoint in Gaza, explained to Israeli intelligence officials that his dwarfism made him the object of ridicule at school, and he had been tempted by the promise of sexual relations with virgins in paradise. 44 Another captured would-be suicide terrorist, a Moroccan man, aged twenty-six, suffered from facial disfigurement.45 A study of suicide bombers in Iraq conducted by the U.S. military found that they were almost always single males from eighteen to thirty, with a mean age of twenty-two and no children. 46 The study concluded that most are "alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark."47 Immigration DA (WIP) tag Levy 6-3 (Gabrielle, Capitol Hill analyst at US News, "Signs of Life For Immigration Reform," June 3 2015, http://www.usnews.com...) With comprehensive immigration reform essentially dead on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future, Republicans appear poised to advance a series of incremental measures to address the hot-button issue amid political pressure to tackle the broken system. W06; GOP lawmakers in recent weeks have proposed potential areas of compromise they hope can help the party handle the delicate balance between appeasing the demands of the base in beefing up border security while addressing the practical economic need for foreign labor.W06; The moves come amid almost no progress on immigration legislation since the then-Democratically controlled Senate passed a comprehensive reform bill in 2013 that never came up for a vote in the GOP-led House. The impasse led President Barack Obama to issue executive orders protecting some groups of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation " infuriating Republicans in the process.W06; With the unilateral moves halted by a federal judge, congressional leadership has been content to sidestep the thorny issue after losing a faceoff in March in which they unsuccessfully tried to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to a rollback of the Obama actions. But the looming presidential race has increased the sense of urgency among some of the rank and file eager to see the party raise its standing among Hispanic voters.W06; "If you"re a Republican [running for president], you at minimum want the immigration issue neutralized, and maybe gain votes where Mitt Romney was unable to get them" in 2012, says Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Foundation for American Policy.W06; While any of the the piecemeal proposals faces long odds to passage and even less chance of cooperation with the White House, one area of focus appears to be on guest worker programs that would increase the number and accessibility of visas for both high- and low-skilled workers. The reform already has bipartisan support.W06; "When it comes to illegal immigration, what"s the No. 1 reason people come to this country illegally? The same reason our ancestors came here: to work," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Tuesday at a bipartisan event exploring pragmatic methods of reigniting the debate on reform. "From my standpoint, if you really want to secure our border, let"s eliminate or drastically reduce the incentives for illegal immigration, starting with a guest worker program."W06; Some studies have suggested that, instead of taking away jobs from Americans, those workers help spur economic growth. It"s a position immigration advocates hope to use to sell the issue to a broader constituency.W06; "If you don"t have a restaurant worker working in the kitchen " you"re not going to have good jobs, waiter jobs, management jobs in restaurants for Americans," says Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership program at the conservative American Principles in Action group and the former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. "So we need to connect with the middle class and show that immigration is good for the middle class."W06; NOGALES, AZ - JANUARY 21: The U.S.-Mexico border fence on January 21, 2014 in Nogales, Arizona. (Photograph by Charles Ommanney/Reportage by Getty Images)W06; RELATEDW06; Tracing the 2016 Fault LinesW06; Aguilar"s organization has suggested setting up guest worker programs for low-skilled workers that would allow the number of visas to fluctuate based on the needs of businesses. The system, particularly suited to the needs of the agricultural industry, would allow workers to come into the U.S. for a few months of the year, then return to their home countries.W06; A more narrowly tailored bill from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also gained some interest from advocates on both sides of the aisle. The measure, which has yet to move in committee, would increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields, and make it easier for those workers to stay in the U.S.W06; "Just like in business, I don't want the smart people working in my competitor's business, I want them working in mine," Johnson said. "The same thing should be true for a national economy: If we use American resources to educate the brightest people from around the world ... we should provide every incentive for the brightest minds to be working here to grow our economy."

negative: Police Brutality If a white, black, green, or yellow person breaks the law and then resists arrest they might get killed or injured.

negative: Police Brutality Police Brutality is what this nation really needs. When people say they're rioting to stop police brutality, well what are the supposed to when 150 people are running around their city and destroying things. Cops actually are doing their jobs they are just having to deal with it more forcefully. People say that they are being harassed and when all they are doing is doing their job. I saw a police officer beat a guy and broke his arm, I at first thought that he was just doing because he can, but after I found out that he was part of a drug deal my mind changed really quick. They at first may seem to be using excessive force but once you know why they are doing it, you might rethink your answer.

negative: The police should be privatized Then three rounds for debate. Resolved: The police should be privatized. I will argue in the affirmative. Good luck.

negative: Gun Control Background checks and mental health evaluations should be given to potential to gun owners before the purchase firearms. There should also be mandatory laws for the ways in which guns should be stored, so that these weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. Not only this, but background checks and mental health evaluations should be given on a yearly basis. This should be the only form of gun control in the United States, that way guns will not be obtained by people with malicious intent.

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: cell phone use in school Should call phones be completely banned from school? Why? or Why not?

negative: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.

negative: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. "2. There's already a fund for the body cameras." Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. "3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie." Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. "4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game." The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. "5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance