query: Should churches remain tax-exempt?

positive: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Preface: I would ask Pro if the next round, or perhaps the round after, be made the concluding round. This debate will devolve into repetition and nonsense if we go all 5 rounds. Proposition: My Opponent challenged my view that Tax Exemption is natural. However, he does not elaborate further. Therefore, he has effectively left the matter in my favour. What we earn is naturally ours, ergo, to have what is ours taken is not natural, even if necessary. I will follow up later. Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: My opponent claims that we will simply label churches as Corporations. Counter: Churches are not Corporations. This is simple, objective fact. Pro can no more relabel them then he could relabel me rich. Pro claims that Churches seek to make money. This means nothing. All charities seek to acquire revenue. What matters is the use of this money. A Corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit. A church seeks to gain revenue in order to benefit everyone else, through charitable means. Ergo, the Churches are in fact Charities, and cannot be labeled as anything else, any more then he can relabel the Salvation Army. To do so in order to expand tax revenue would be a grievous abuse of power, and a sign of a Government that is falling beyond the threshold. No, Churches will be labeled as what they are, Charitable organizations. Pro says Tithes are mandatory, I ask for sources. Social Pressures are also given when charities stand outside walmart, or when we are asked to donate at the register. But this doesn’t change the nature of the charities responsible. No, Pro may be too weak to resist social pressure, but he cannot redefine “Voluntary”. No matter how much pressure is applied, the fact that you can say no (Often times without people knowing) means it is completely voluntary. I, for example, did not give tithe in church today. Conclusion: Pro failed to prove that Churches are Corporations, and merely declared them to be so. Or rather, declared that he would label them Corporations, regardless of what they actually are. Counter-Case II: “Counter-Cases” / “Cases” Summarization: Pro has attempted to attack my Counters, while presented a new case that Churches aren’t Charities. Counter: “When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. ” This is one of the most philosophically bankrupt views I have seen in awhile. Again, to keep what we earn is the natural way, and to be taxed is unnatural, if necessary. To act as though taxation is inherent until otherwise said shows a lack of understanding of the nature of taxation. Saying that government withholding tax is a sign of support further shows his flawed philosophy toward taxation. The inability to distinguish between not having our income stolen, and being money suggests he views our money as Government Property, with the money we have left being our allowance. I will allow the Voters to make of this philosophy what they will. Once the smaller Churches begin going under, Pro will then give them a stimulus. This means taking money from wealthier churches, and giving it to smaller churches, to make up for the tax that is now implemented. This is the endorsement of religion the First Amendment is against. This means benefiting the smaller churches at the expense of the large ones (ironically, more so than Pro’s claim that exemption benefits larger churches more). Or perhaps we not tax them at all, and not need to give taxpayer money to Churches. Or they collapse. Then tax revenue is lost. Now no one gets Social Aid. My opponent declares SCOTUS to be the final authority, yet again committing the Appeal to Authority, without giving evidence that they are right. SCOTUS has been wrong before. They are largely an opinion with authority, whereas my sources are academic. I have shown the flaw in their reasoning, Pro has not shown flaw in my sources. Pro says that our education system is underfunded, without source. I have sourced that it is among the most well-funded in the world. All other problems are in administration, and therefore extra funding won’t help. Our SS problems are derived from a broken system. Money will be wasted without change. Pro fails to express how taking the money from a charity, and wasting half of it will benefit us more than just letting the Charity use the money. Paying the debt is no better than war. It is taking more money to pay for the government's own inefficiencies, rather than trying to fix it from the government’s (expenditure) end. Pro fails to show how these churches are not charitable. Rather, he makes the unsubstantiated claim that they “keep a cut for themselves”. What he is referring to is unknown, and thus irrelevant. Any administrative/maintenance/debt costs are normal for charities. They are still Charities. Scientology has a controversial tax status. It has even been revoked because it didn’t meet the requirements to be a non-for-profit Church. {1} Thus Churches can lose status. Pro also mentions that bureaucracy won’t waste the money. I sourced that there was waste. Here is another {2} Conclusion: Pro’s Counters fail to dispel my arguments, and he fails to revive his own. As it stands, his logic is shown to be faulty. Pro says my argument relies on Churches being Charity, but as this is the established fact about Churches, it is actually Pro’s job to show they are not Charities. He has failed in this endeavor, as his statements, when looked at carefully, can be seen to apply to any Charity. His failure to show that churches can even be taxes further defies his claim that taxing them will benefit social programs. He further continues making unsubstantiated claims that adding money to these programs will help, when I have shown the problems are often not financial. Sources: 1} Wikipedia: . http://bit.ly... 2} Slate: . http://slate.me... Case: Long-Term Loss Thesis: I will show here that increasing taxation will only lead to a less successful future, with a dangerous precedent in place, and decreased taxation is prefered. Rationalization: A fact that many people seem not to realize is that taxation harms long term economic growth {3}. With less capital, business/people have less spare income for expansion. This will not change for churches. Their decreased growth will lead to the revenue from them dropping overtime relative to inflation and government spending. Eventually, the Social assistance gained from this tax (which is already less than lost by taxing charities) will further decline relative to had the Churches been able to simply invest the money into expension (something Charities are allowed to do). But worse, is the precedence. After taxing the Churches, the Government will find that it is not enough. Because 71 Billion won’t fix the anything. Instead of fixing their fiscal incompetence, they simply added a tax, on a 501c3 eligible group with strong legal defenses. The precedence is almost certainly set. If it has already been set (very likely given increasing tax/GDP ratio {4}), it will be further enforced. New taxes, expanded taxes. This will lead to slowed economic growth, and cause long-term harm to revenue. If taxes are lowered instead, the economy will grow from increased investment/ease-of-business. The increase in economy will eventually reach a point will more revenue can be brought in with lower and less taxes. A long-term solution, along with fixing the bureaucratic mess, and destroying waste. Far better and more efficient than the short-term solution of taxing more, which will only necessitate (and precedate) further taxation increases. Conclusion: Pro’s economic policies would see decreased economic/church growth, leading to a situation where tax revenues will be lower (relative to inflation) in spite of higher tax rates. Lower taxes and smaller/efficient government is best. Sources: 3} TPC: . http://tpc.io... 4} . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro fails to resuscitate his arguments, often merely repeating them without further elaboration. He fails to realize that simply referring to SCOTUS’ position doesn’t justify their claims. Pro doesn’t really make any headway against my claims, beyond relying on the notion that he can tax them as something they aren’t (Corporations). And if they don’t fit the classification, he’ll tax them as such anyhow. This doesn’t work, and Pro failed to show Churches to be anything but Charities, as his descriptions of the churches are little different than other Charities once analyzed. Perhaps most crippling is Pro revealing his faulty philosophy toward taxation, implying that theft of our earned money is natural, and to be allowed to keep all of our earned income is a gift from government. This is a dangerous notion. Pro may not have stated this philosophy word-for-word, but the implication is there. Especially, when he says not having our money taken is the same as being given money. This is a stockholmesque view. Taxation is Theft. Taxation is necessary, but it is theft. It must be done carefully, and every single effort must be made to keep it as low as possible. If government fails in this endeavour, and choses to keep raising tax, then it must be seen as an aggressive parasite to our economic system, taking more, and giving less. Pro would prefer this parasite, because his disdain for religion justifies expanded taxation on charities simply due to their religious nature. {5/6} Sources: 5} . http://bit.ly... 6} Mises: . http://bit.ly...

positive: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Synopsis: The Resolution is interpreted to suggest that religious communities (the definition of “Church/Mosque/Synagogue” being used) should pay Taxes, and not have tax exempt status. The word “Church” will be used in substitution to all forms of related Religious Communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others {2} Endorsement: An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. {3} Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly... Proposition II: BOP will be on my Opponent, as he desires a change from the Status Quo, is Pro, and the instigator of the debate. Additionally, I claim that all money, being properly acquired, is exempt from tax until otherwise made compulsory. In this way, not being required to pay tax is the natural system, and therefore, Pro must show that there is a proper justification to extend taxation over a currently untaxed organization. Counter-Case I: Endorsement of Religion / Favouring Large Churches Counter: This is purely non sequitur. Allowing people to keep more of what is already theirs does not count as endorsing them. Rather, giving them money would count as Endorsement. They aren’t being given money, they are keeping the money that was already theirs. It would be endorsement to give a different status to other religious communities. Which means all Religious communities would either need taxed, or exempt. My opponent referenced a SCOTUS decision, however it isn’t sourced, so it can be disregarded, since no details are linked. Regardless, I will go ahead and point out that it is still an appeal to authority, and doesn’t matter in a discussion on what we believe should/n’t be done. Regardless of their decision, being allowed to keep more of your money is not the same as being given money. SCOTUS seems to speak from the position that our money is the government's money until we are told we can keep it. But that isn’t how it works. The issue with Pros second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will somehow be more fair than allowing both Large and Small Churches to keep all their income. In truth, Larger churches are more easily capable of paying taxes, while Smaller Churches risk falling under and failing, in the same way that small business’ are hurt more than large business’. Whereas a similar tax rate will still allow large organizations enough income to accomplish their goals and obligations, it would leave smaller organizations a smaller income to do so, preventing growth. With that said, I will further point out that there is a break in the logic that says allowing two people to keep all their money benefits the richer more because he has more money to keep. Saying a wealthier organization makes more money, so we should take it, doesn’t work. In actuality, giving a different tax liability to different Religious Organizations risk creating “endorsement” by forcing larger ones to pay more. Giving the same Liability endorses the larger ones by hurting smaller “competitors”. Conclusion:I have shown here that there is no endorsement or unfairness in giving the same tax exemption to all organizations of the same type. Rather the only way to avoid the government influencing religion is to keep Government out of Church coffers. Counter-Case II: Use of Tax Revenue. Counter: So? Firstly, I’ll let Pro know that Blogs, which do not have links to direct sources, are not themselves sources. So Pro’s first source is not valid. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. We cannot simply justify increased taxation by the amount it will provide. Instead of sustaining increased spending with increased taxation, we must first work to decrease spending. Funneling the money into systems like the VA is a waste, as it is not an issue of money, but of structure and efficiency, like many other budgets. Other budgets are similarly well funded, but suffer from inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy (Such as education, where we have one of the highest spending per students in the world {4/5/6}), or otherwise has dedicated revenue (SS is supported by largely by Pay Roll Tax {7/8}). And to say we could fund the Vietnam war is also a terrible thought. Taxing Charities to fund unpopular wars? Pro is listing how we can use the money, but I argue we should try to fix the problems that lead to the failure of these programs. Taxation from Churches look like a lot, but will not fix our problems. So we should try something that can. Streamline bureaucracy, modernize systems, and try to fix our financial problems by decreasing financial needs. If the systems are not able to be fixed without constantly increased taxation, then the system is broken and should be replaced. Pro sets a dangerous precedent of fixing problems by taking more money. I will lastly point out that Religious organizations are highly charitable (sourced in Case I below). Pro is wanting to take this charitable money, lose half of it in Bureaucracy, and use the rest for welfare. It will not help, but rather it will decrease national social assistance. Of course, this doesn’t really matter, as the Churches will not pay taxes regardless of their religious status, as I will point out in my Case below. . Conclusion:Here it is shown that the notion that our budget should be fixed by increasing taxes is flawed and dangerous, and that the problem should be fixed from the expenditure end. If Pro had his way, our government could spend as much as they want, and simply charge us more for the right to exist, rather than taking responsibility for our money which they have forced us to hand over. Why should we be forced to give more and more to an irresponsible Robber Baron that won’t at least try to minimize the costs? No, be accountable to our money, then we can talk about taking our holy dollars. Sources: 4} CBS: . http://cbsn.ws... 5} OECD: . http://bit.ly... 6} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... 7} . http://bit.ly... 8} Heritage: . http://bit.ly... Case: Churches are Non-For-Profit / Funded by Donation. Thesis: I will prove here that removing the tax exempt status will not change anything, as Churches are inherently tax exempt through being Charitable organizations. Rationalization: Churches are non-for-profit. They are highly charitable {9, yes the source says the catholic church doesn’t provide half of SA, but it does show they alone still provide a great portion}. The church's income largely goes to paying workers (like most Charities, which is subject to income tax), debt {like most Charities}, mortgage/rent {like most Charities}, maintenance {like most Charities}, and Bills {like most Charities}. The remainder is largely charitable or related to religious programs {10}. Like all Charities, they are inherently Tax-Exempt. I will point out that Churches must meet certain 501c3 requirements, such as not attempting to intervene in political campaigns. They may, under certain instances, be subject to UBIT Tax. {11} Churches are Charitable, and therefore tax exempt, even without their status as churches, as their non-administrative expenses deal with social aid, and religious expansion, rather than commercial or financial profit. {12} So even with removing the religious exemption, Churches will not be paying taxes anyhow. Pro would have to also support altering the 501c3 requirements, which risk forcing other non-religious charities to pay taxes, or otherwise to add in a clause preventing non-religious organizations from being class as Charities, which would be worse as that would become religious discrimination. Conclusion:Here I have successfully shown that Churches, being charitable organizations, would be tax exempt even barring religious exemptions. The impact of this coincides with Counter-Case II. Pro spoke of all the ways we can use Religious Taxes, but since these Churches, as charitable groups, will pay no tax anyhow, there will be no extra income for the inefficient social programs that Pro wants to support. All the effort of forcing through a controversial law to get the Churches taxed, and absolutely no increase in revenue. Sources: 9} Politifact: . http://bit.ly... 10} . http://bit.ly... 11} Score: . http://bit.ly... 12} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: My opponents arguments are basically that we should fix our fiscal problems by increasing taxes, rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current system. I rather suggest we fix the problems so that we need not increase taxes. Beyond this, Pro gives no other real argument because the non-sequitur that letting Groups keep their own money is the same as giving them money, when it is different on principle, and that tax exemptions benefit richer churches more, when in reality, taxation would hurt smaller churches more. Regardless of religious status, the sheer majority of these organizations are Charitable, and would not be taxable regardless. Any money taxed would be used less efficiently with the added layers of bureaucracy. I’ll point out that there are major moral problems if money taxed from Church went to things (or freed other money to go to things) which are fundamentally against the Church’s views. Lastly, I repeat myself, not for the last time this debate: The Budget should be fixed streamlining, removing redundant or aged programs/departments/regulations, and fighting wasteful/corrupt spending. Not by following the never ending policy of increased taxation, which will only reward their fiscal incompetence rather than force fiscal reform. {13/14} Sources: 13} Heritage:. http://bit.ly... 14} The Hill:. http://bit.ly... ==Unitomic==

positive: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a "rock star" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim "avoiding" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a "franchise" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also incidentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net investment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses property both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for example, a building in which the foundation’s charitable and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance.

positive: Churches should be taxed. Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book "To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be ‘double taxation’ indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy."[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: "Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate." Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches "making millions" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com...

positive: Churches should be taxed. Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] "Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions."For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:■ the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, ■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, ■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, ■ the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: "We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike."[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: "At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large."[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org...

positive: Should Churches Pay Taxes Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.

positive: Churches should be taxed. Assuming Churches count as NPO(non-profit organisations) they should be taxed in the same ways. All other organizations (like corporations, including non-profits) pay taxes on everything, profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, payroll tax. Churches are often a big part of communities in America, they typically use a lot of the communities resources, occupying large areas of land and real estate that they do not have to pay tax on. The amount of property owned by churches is vast compare to any other single co-operation, if the churches were to pay only this tax alone the personal property taxes you and I pay would go down considerably, many tons and cities property tax rates would drop and lets be honest, the government would have a LOT more income. Not only are churches using vast amounts of land they are not paying tax for, they also use the services paid for by tax payers, why is it fair churches get the same treatment by police, fire departments and schools that us ta payers do, when they provide nothing towards it? However you may claim churches to be non-profit, they still collect money and revenue in many forms, donations, events, fund-raisers, trips, selling merchandise (whether they pay sales tax on this I am not sure, I think it may vary church-to-church and depending on the merchandise) at the end of the day, successful churches such as those run by the Baptists and Catholics make millions, many churches in my area have their own gyms, libraries, day cares and swimming pools, they also seem to afford excessive trips and camps. Where does all this money come from and why is none of it going back into the economy? You may claim that it is being put to good use for the churchgoers to use these facilities, but what about atheists like me, or people from non-Christian organisations? Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate. At the end of the day everyone would benefit from Churches paying tax; they are such a huge part of the American society and the gain a lot of revenue (whether they are meant to or not! ) Every other organisation has to claim their earnings, there is no reason churches should be exempt.

positive: Churches Paying Taxes Churches should pay taxes because they are just like other companies that pay taxes. Churches make money, And all companies who make money get taxed. By taxing churches their would be an estimated $71 billion worth of taxes. $71 billion is a lot of money that could be spent to benefit the world. Yes, Churches do donate money, But the Mormon church spends only. 7% of their annual income on charity. The American Red Cross spends 92. 1% of their income to assist people. "Wal-Mart, For instance, Gives about $1. 75 billion in food aid to charities each year, Or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years. (Derek Beres, 2012)" Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches

positive: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. In this debate resolved, I affirm and stand with the PRO. I ask the CON to please refrain from providing any rebuttals in the second round as it is for the formulation of case statements. I have no parameters for this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my case: [Thesis]The exemption of churches in the case of taxation violates the First Amendment, contradicts the word of US law considering the nature of churches, and economically comprimises the US defecit. Henceforth, American churches should be taxed. [Contentions]Contention 1: Subsidizing religion violates the First Amendment.Subsidizing churches constitutes the establishment of a religion with consideration that American government is providing special protection and privilages to groups solely intended toward the practice of faith [1]. This action and the practice of it violates the Establishment clause, as shown below. Sub-point 1a: Purpose of the subsidization of churches includes the advancement of religion. The Internal Revenue Service explains the purposes of exemption of taxes in its Code Section 501(c)(3): "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." [2]Sub-point 1b: American governments are favoritist toward churches. The following presents an analysis on the guidelines from the Internal Revenue Service: "Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. " [3]Contention 2: Tax exemption of churches is economically compromising.Constitutional arguments aside, tax exemption of churches is also economically compromising with consideration that the property taxes of such institutions can greatly reduce deficits. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [4]Contention 3: The nature of churches warrants removal of tax exemptions according to American law. The removal of tax exemptions can be argued legally as well as constitutionally. Sub-point 3a: Many churches are political machines. The United States passed a law in 1954 explaining that institutions that are tax-exempted in no circumstances can support political candidates. "Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status." [5] [1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, supreme.justia.com, Feb. 10, 1947[2] http://www.irs.gov...;[3] US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (5.1 MB) (publication 1828 (11-2009) Catalog Number 21096G), www.irs.gov, 2009[4] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, "The Church of America," www.huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 11, 2011[5] Andy Birkey, "Few Consequences Currently Faced by Pastors Who Endorse from Pulpit,” iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011

positive: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Since my opponent forfeited, I"ll be brief. The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications. Whether you agree with the benefits derived from the charity the church makes (missions, absolution, peace of mind, counseling, soup kitchens, etc.), they still have a mission to improve the world, in their eyes. Social clubs do not have that pre-requisite, therefore, they are not the same, and should not be compelled to be treated equally. http://www.irs.gov... www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

positive: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Okay, I'm really really sorry. I had a big English project, then I got a little sick. and I lost the charging cable for my laptop...... let's just say that it has been an interesting week. If my opponent would like to continue after we run out of rounds, maybe in the comments section, or in a new debate, then I would be willing to do so. I would just like to restate that this is only over property taxes and tax deductions. These are the only major tax differences between churches in non-profit clubs that is worth discussing. "The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications." I think we have to examine what counts as charitable. As a charitable organization or a government agency/public service (like a library or county courthouse or a soup kitchen) money given to them is tax deductible. Similarly, a religious organization is also on this list of tax deductible organizations. Also on this list is 2 types of private organizations. Domestic Fraternal Societies and non-profit cemetery companies. However, restrictions are placed on even these. For the fraternal society, the entire amount you are claiming as a donation must be used for a charitable action, and for the cemetery company it cannot be used for a specific lot or mausoleum. *1 Now, I agree that a church may engage in charitable actions. This is clear to anyone. I was part of a synagogue for most of my life, and I remember every once in a while them passing around a collection plate or asking for canned food. I also remember them using that money to build a new Synagogue, because they didn't have one (they had services in other locations that they rented out or borrowed). Most religious organizations do not use enough money towards charitable actions to be considered a charity. The purpose of declaring something a charity, and refraining from taxing it at all, and then giving deductions for donations is thus. 1. To convince people to use their own money to fund relief and support programs that the community as a whole supports more. 2. To not have to provide services being rendered by that organization. Does a church do either of these? While the community as a whole might more support the church, is it really providing a relief to the community? Is giving my ten dollars to that church really going to do more, or even a comparable amount then if I had given it to a real charity? Should I get the same tax deduction from donating to a soup kitchen that I get from donating to a church? Now I would like to separate religious organizations into 3 categories, to which I will argue separately. The first will be charities that may affiliate with a religion, but function as charities. I have volunteered with the Jewish Relief Agency, which unless you live in the greater Philadelphia area and are Jewish, probably don't know about. It's a warehouse that packages boxes filled with square meals for the week and delivers it to mostly, but not exclusively, needy Jewish people (mostly recent Russian immigrants). They give the majority of their funds to the charity itself, and give a negligible amount (less then 10%) to religious practices. This is a charity and should be treated as such. There are other examples of things that are clearly more charities then religious organizations, though they may affiliate with some religious organizations. Now there are standard churches that participate in large, or exemplary charitable actions. (as in, 30-70% of their income). These are not charities. Though they may partake in many charitable actions, they should be taxed. However, they can receive large deductions from their charitable actions, and may end up paying no taxes at all, or very little. This is great. They should be able to do this, and I, and most people, should applaud them for doing so. But, they are still a religious organization. My donation will do less then donating to a real charity. It should not be tax deducted equally, or at all like it would if I donated it to a charity. The last is a standard church that participates in little to no charity (0 - 20% of income). They may receive a small amount of deduction, or perhaps none at all. Ultimately though, these are religious organizations. They cannot be considered charities. Their money only goes to benefit those who give the money, and do not give any benefit to the outside community (for religious people; remember point number 4 in round 1). I personally would argue that it gives no benefit to those inside the religion, but whatever. It is a social club that prays. That is all that a non-donating religious organization is. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status. 1. http://www.irs.gov...

positive: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Thanks, Hayd.Framework:I was extremely surprised to see Hayd go with a purely utilitarian framework and not make any arguments based on higher principles such as separation of church and state. This means that if I can prove that religion is on balance good, and that the resolution would harm religion in this country, I automatically win. Due to his framework, if religion is good than we should pursue policies that encourage religion. I. Religion is a social goodAccording to a Pew survey, Americans who attend religious services weekly are significantly more likely to maintain strong contacts with extended family, to report being "very happy" with their life, and to volunteer in their local community[1]. There is not a single metric rating positive life experience that Pew measured where the nonreligious came out on top. Religious people are 9% more likely to donate to charity than the nonreligious[2]. Religiosity is positively correlated with a number of positive health outcomes which is why a study from Duke Medical Center found that the religious had lower blood pressures[3]. A Harvard study recording the life outcomes of 75,000 women over a 20 year period found that religious women live longer lives than their nonreligious peers[4]. Remarkably, the effect was correlated with the degree of religiosity--the most religious women were 33% less likely to die than the nonreligious, but even those who infrequently attended services were 13% less likely to die than those who never attended. Even more remarkably, this conclusion was reached AFTER controlling for the observations that the more religious women were less likely to smoke or to be depressed. Again, because this warrants repeating, not only were the religious women less likely to report depression or to smoke, but they were STILL significantly less likely to die AFTER controlling for these facts (which alone would be impactful enough to win me the debate). Clearly religion is some powerful stuff. Why do these effects exist? The sense of community that a religious community offers is something that greatly benefits social animals like humans. Interestingly, the Duke study notes that while church attendance and active involvement in church activities was correlated with lower blood pressure, viewing religious media was NOT. It's the community. The dangers of social isolation are incredibly well studied--it's about as dangerous for your health as smoking, and twice as dangerous as obesity[5]. For many people, especially the elderly, going to church is the only time they get to socialize. This is the institution that Hayd wants to tax.It's not just beneficial to the individual. Houses of worship are often used as community gathering centers for secular or semi-secular organizations--think things like Preschools or your local Boy Scout troop. Under Hayd's plan, a LOT of these local churches are going to shut their doors.I contend that the government should let organic social goods flourish. Remember, since Hayd only cares about maximizing "desirable states", he should concede that the government shouldn't harm religion since religious people are happier, healthier, and less likely to die. At this point, he can only win the debate if he proves that taxing religious institutions will somehow strengthen them. II. Economic effectsBefore I get started, let's clear something up. Hayd claims that taxing churches would bring in $71 billion a year, citing an article from the Council of Secular Humanism. An analysis by DJ Clayworth tears this article to absolute *shreds*[6]. The most absurd part of the fact that the article itself estimates that churches take in about $100 billion in revenues each year, then claims taxing churches like "everyone else" would bring in $71 billion. Except nobody else pays 70% of their *gross revenue* in taxes. Clayworth notes that the biased authors of Hayd's article know nothing about taxation law and get their estimate through tricks like denying churches the ability to deduct expenses from their taxable income, wildly overestimating the value of church property, and by counting government subsidies to religiously affiliated homeless shelters or hospitals as grants that provide no value to society. Until he amends his estimate, Hayd is advocating for an economic formula that would utterly bankrupt every religious institution in the nation. In fact, Hayds OWN ARTICLE chastizes religious congregations for donating only an average of 29% of their revenues to charitable causes. Except it notes literally right afterward that 71% of Church revenues are used for legitimate operating expenses that would be written off when paying taxes. The church spends 71% of its income on operating expenses and then donates everything that would be considered taxable income in a corporation to charity. In the status qou, congregations donate everything beyond operating expenses to charity because they are legally prohibited from an income or else they'll lose their non-profit status. Using any reasonable tax code, Hayd only gets the government a chunk of the 29% that already goes to charity. Is it Hayds position that the government would allocate this money better than the charitatable organizations already receiving it?Lets talk some real numbers from unbiased sources. The Washington Post notes that the Catholic Church is the second largest employer in the US, employing some 1,000,000 people[7]. The Church spends about $170 billion in the United States a year. Its primary expenses? Running hospitals that save thousands of lives and schools that educate thousands of children. This is the institution that Hayd wants to tax out of existence. Right now, the business model of the Catholic Church assumes that it is not subject to taxes. Finding what the profit margin of the church would be if it were treated as a corporation is difficult, but we know from estimates from The Economist[7] that Health Care, Schools, and Parish operations constitute 93% of the Church budget. Hayd wants to throw the business model of the second largest employer in America into a tailspin for virtually no reason. It's tough to estimate just how hard taxation would hit the Church because Hayd's plan is utterly absurd and I'm being charitable to him, but considering that the Catholic Church owns over 26,000 properties in America[8] a property tax alone would do significant damage. Hospitals would start cutting staff or closing down entirely. Schools would shut down, forcing the students itno public schools and further stretch municipal budgets. Tens of thousands of workers would be cut off and forced to compete for private jobs or take government welfare. All of this for nothing. Moreover it's certain that many local congregations would wither if they were subject to taxes. Small congregations (7-99 congregants), which represent 59% of American churches[9] would be some of the first to go. In fact, Megachurches that are already run like a business and embody the worst of religion would best weather the storm. III. Separation of Church and StateSeparation of Church and State is a principle that is often misunderstood by secularists. The idea is not merely that the church ought to have no influence on the state--it's that the state also ought to leave the church alone. The spiritual and the temporal are separate spheres. This is so important because a healthy relationship between Church and State has a sense of "mutually assured destruction." Both the Church and the State recognize that open competition for power and dominance would benefit no one, so they leave each other alone to the best of their ability. Hayd wants the government to violate this unspoken truce. Does he really not expect religion to hit back? Right now, religious organizations are prohibited from endorsing political candidates due to a law called the Johnson Amendment. If they do so, they will lose their tax-exempt status. If the government removes this penalty, there is nothing stopping churches from directly influencing government policy or endorsing candidates. The Catholic vote was almost evenly split in 2012[10]. An endorsement from the Catholic Church would swing any US presidential election and any congressional race in an area with a lot of Catholic voters. In fact, they would probably just endorse whichever candidates vow to return their tax-exempt status, negating all of Hayds impacts. Oh, and while it power they would probably repeal the Johnson Amendment.This is not the path to secularism. This is the path to dominionism.Hayds plan also opens up a HUGE religious discrimination can of worms. He complains about the lawsuits religious institutions bring to defend their tax-exempt status, but this cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of defending against litigation from religious organizations that feel discriminated against because they were audited or their property taxes went up. The resolution is unworkable. Vote Con.Sources:1. http://www.pewforum.org...2. https://www.philanthropy.com...3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://www.cnn.com...5. http://www.slate.com...6. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...7. https://www.washingtonpost.com...8. https://www.bisnow.com...9. http://hirr.hartsem.edu...10. http://www.reuters.com...

positive: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Thanks, Hayd.I'm just going to respond to Hayd's attacks since I directly refuted his case in my own. There will be a lot of fresh attacks against his case wrapped up in my defenses.I. Religion is a social goodHayd concedes this point entirely, noting only that public events could be held at schools, crowding out after-school activities.You can vote Con. It is not remotely plausible that forcing Churches to hire armies of tax lawyers and pay taxes on their properties (many of which are priceless architectural marvels) will help religion in this country. Remember, active involvement in a religious community extends life, makes that life happier and more fulfilled, and increases that individuals positive impact on society. Does Hayd want to compare that record with the government? His only real response is that my claims that religion will be damaged if it's taxed is unwarranted. I didn't hit this very much because I assumed it was completely obvious, but I'll note that Hayd totally dropped my argument regarding the business model of churches assuming that they don't pay taxes. Adding a massive tax burden throws that model into flux and adds instability for no reason. I'm not sure what else I can be expected to do here. As the complete take down of the Council of Secular Humanism article shows, making accurate estimates about this kind of thing is incredibly difficult and often leaves you with your foot in your mouth. Instead you have to go with the logic that, yes, having to hire armies of tax lawyers, pay property and income taxes, and totally change your business model from the bottom to the top is going to cause damage on the margins. Corporations fight taxes tooth and nail for a reason, the extra expense harms the bottom line. Since Hayd has totally conceded that the bottom line of religion is a massive boon for society, it's difficult to see how Pro can win the debate. But the absurdity of this line of attack really comes through when you get into the specifics behind Hayd's case. Hayd later claims that the government will make tons of money because the average property tax burden on the 300,000 churches would be over $26,000. Doesn't sound so bad if you're thinking about Billy Graham sized crowds. Except the majority of congregations in this country consist of less than 100 people. $26,000 distributed over, say, 50 congregants is an incredible burden that would shut down almost any church. And that's just the property taxes.I'm also going to rebut Hayd's entire case by calling for him to morally justify taxation. The general argument for taxing corporations is that since society provides for them via the roads their goods travel on, the police force protecting them from robbery, and so on they owe something in return. If churches are as great as I claim they are, and Hayd has conceded to every single one of my claims, they are already fulfilling their debt to society. The moral justification for taxing churches is bunk. II. Economic effects Hayd writes: "[Thett] assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church’s." This is ***COMPLETELY*** false and not at all how corporate taxes work. If expenses weren't tax deductible, literally every business in the United States would go under. Corporations are taxed on their *income* which is the number you get after subtracting revenue (all of the money the organization takes in that year) from expenses (everything it spends). So for example in 2015 Ford earned some $149 million in revenue[1], but operating costs ate at that number until the taxable income was a mere $10 million. Legitimate operating expenses like building upkeep and employee payment are ALWAYS tax-deductible because they whittle away the corporations taxable income.Hayd says he is not allowing churches to deduct these legitimate expenses. He loses his previous argument that churches won't be hit very hard by his new taxes as he is subjecting religions to a completely unfair and unique tax burden by not allowing them to write off operating costs. If he chooses not to advocate for this exaggerated and unfair tax burden, I hereby turn his entire case: Hayd's impact relies upon more money going to charity if you tax churches. But the reality is that *LESS* money will be going to go to charity. Right now in order to maintain their non-profit status, churches are legally prohibited from having an income. As we've already discussed, on average 71% of their income goes to expenses and only 29% would be considered "income." Hayd gets the government some of that 29%. But the Church keeps the rest. And now that they're no longer obligated to maintain their non-profit status, with many strapped for cash due to the massive financial burden Hayd throws on them, can they really be expected to donate all of their remaining profits to charity? By legally turning churches into a business, Hayd is actually reducing the money that goes to charity and opening the door for unscrupulous religious leaders to enrich themselves from church revenue. Further, if you don't buy that turn for some reason, you still vote Con because Hayd can't just assume that all the money is going to be donated to charity. The resolution does not say "Churches ought to be taxed and the proceeds will go to charity"--we have NO REASON to assume that the government will give this money to charitable causes and Hayd has not articulated any.You can vote Con because Hayd literally has no impacts. His plan requires you to assume that no churches are hurt by a sudden tax burden, the church does not retaliate against the government in a negative way, that no churches keep rather than donate their profits now that they have the option, and that the government will donate the proceeds to charity. Give him all of these EXTREMELY GENEROUS assumptions and it is STILL a wash. Even if you don't buy any of my own points Hayd still loses because he adds instability to the status quo without producing any tangible improvement.III. Church and State Hayd fundamentally misunderstands why the sacred and the secular should be separate spheres. He says the argument that churches would retaliate to this violation of their sovereignty is unwarranted, but he is actively undermining their interests by imposing a massive financial burden. Hayd says he doesn't see a problem with the church influencing secular politics, but the vast majority of Americans do. When His Holiness the Pope himself criticized Trump he was roundly condemned and THE POPE apologized. I find it extremely doubtful that Hayd can't see the obvious problem with every election in the United States literally being decided by who the major religions endorse. All it takes is one instance of the church's political position contradicting the public good for there to be an impact when you're working with a government that is completely reliant on the church for its legitimacy. This is the road to dominionism. Remember that since Hayd has no impacts, even the tiniest risk of an undue religious influence on the government harming the public good is enough to win me the debate. Hayd bizarrely responds to my religious discrimination argument by claiming that lawsuits wouldn't cost the government anything because the law is the law, despite making an extremely similar point in his first round. Which is it? Hayd causes a lot of instability without anything to show for it. The resolution is completely negated. Sources:1. http://www.nasdaq.com...

positive: End tax breaks for religious organizations Churches need to be taxed. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches"was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about"five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S.""All tax free. There are many other organizations the needy can turn to.

positive: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from "a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.

positive: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. It seems that he decided to start arguing from round 1-really no problem- so I have to start with the rebuttals:"I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay" The main problem is that the money that all US citizens pay are not only used for building churches or keeping them clean. I hate to repeat the same things again and again so I advice you to read all the arguments (especially 7) and you'll relize why I support that. 1) Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions ofdollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economictimes:According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer,PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [6] 2) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith…I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional. " [1]3)A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines: As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused. " [2]4) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion:William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. " [3]5) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense:In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in Schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one person,nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars. "The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. " 6) Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified:Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [5] 7) American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year: US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [7] 8) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional: While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [8] 9) The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates: As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place. " [9]10) The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [10]11) A tax exemption is not a right: Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community. If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? It makes much more sense to see tax exemptions as a way to encourage organizations which work for the public benefit rather than personal profit and a means by which taxpayers put themselves at a relative tax disadvantage in exchange for the benefits the organizations provide. What this means, however, is that it is possible for the government to deny tax exemptions to those groups which are not benefitting the public and/or which are working against a compelling public policy — and that may include churches or other religious organizations. Tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege which the government bestows based upon the nature of what a group is doing. [11] Sources:[1]. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[2] Mark Twain's Notebook,1935[3]. https://supreme.justia.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.irs.gov...http://content.time.com...http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://supreme.justia.com...[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://nypost.com...http://www.entrepreneur.com... [7]. http://www.npr.org... [8]. http://www.irs.gov... [9]. http://www.patheos.com...; [10]. http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... [11]. http://atheism.about.com...

negative: Marijuana should remain illegal I accept. I am for the legalization of recreational and medical uses of Marijuana. Good luck and I hope we have a good debate. Since no definitions were set up I'll do some. Marijuana- Cannabis Illegal- In this context, to have the sale, possession, distribution and growth illegal to be punished by the law

negative: Marijuana should remain illegal This debate will be about whether weed should be legalized or remain illegal. I will take on the role as the naysayer. My opponent will argue for its legalization. For round 1, when accepting my challenge, Introduce yourself, but the arguing will not begin until the second round.

negative: Marijuana should remain illegal Marijuana is a substance that many people abuse. This "gift of nature" is a cause of several thousand employment terminations, incarcerations, relationship breakups, car accidents, and more. The main purpose of smoking marijuana is for the high that one receives. The fact that it "grows naturally" doesn't excuse the fact it is an abused drug, and causes a person to act poorly, nor does it call for a legalization.

negative: Christian churches need to distinguish between dangerous people and safe people and act accordingly. If a person poses a threat to the church building or the people inside, church employees have the right to ask that person to leave or take other steps to make sure that that person does as little damage as possible. Example 1: A church is so big that they feel that they need armed guards on the premises. A gunman enters the building, shooting parishioners. The armed guard shoots the gunman. Example 2: A church located near a football stadium sells parking spots on home game days. The church's facilities (kitchen, restrooms, lounge area) are open to those parking at the church that day. A group of very drunk people unassociated with the church's parking operation come and want to use the church's restroom to drunk-puke in. The parking manager and several parkers tell the drunk and sick people to leave. Example 3: A pastor is at home with her young daughters. A member of the church shows up on her doorstep asking for help, but is clearly a danger to himself and others. The pastor, thinking of her daughters' safety, forces the man to leave. Are the actions taken by those associated with the churches in these examples justified?

negative: Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed Against the child's will? Honoring them and loving them is against your will because you may say that they are loving and graceful to them, but, surely you can't prove that love is not against the child's will. If you honor them, you traumatized them to feel like monsters out of some kind of horror movie, waiting to die. If it is against the child's will It is, it is love.

negative: Catholic churches First off, let me welcome my opponent to Debate.org (DDO). I wish him a long and productive period here, and feel like a right jerk for Round 1.I assume that that by churches, my opponent also means Cathedrals and Basilicas and stuff like that.My Case:Contention One: Catholics already have plenty of charitable organizationsCatholic charities are numerous, and consistently rated highly for their efforts to improve living conditions of many. CharityWatch rates Catholic Relief Services with an A+, and Catholic Charities USA is the second highest provider of social services in the United States (after the Federal government) and was ranked second largest nonprofit organization in the US [1][2][3]. It is generally agreed that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Plenty of effort is already being used for charitable reasons, and as I will detail further churches are too important to cut.Contention Two: Catholic churches are by necessity gloriousWhat Catholics are called to do is to put God first and themselves second. Therefore, it makes sense that the buildings we build for the praise of God be beautiful and of high quality. Ideally, churches should be better furnished than homes. When you have a some little shed as your church, that says something about what you think of God. For instance, look at the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, and the Temple. Many valuable materials were used to construct those things, because they were for God. It is the same with Catholic churches today.Contention Three: Public enjoymentAnyone can enjoy the splendor of Catholic churches. Even if you have no money, you can still enter beautiful places like Westminster Cathedral. The elegance of the Catholic churches can even be enjoyed by non-Catholics, and you need no money to do so. How often does a poor person find themselves able to afford a visit to such spectacular sights? Catholic churches are free.Contention Four: What else do we do with them?As my opponent is proposing a change in the status quo, I believe it is up to him to show what could otherwise be done. A lot of the money spent on churches is upkeep; but these churches are often of great cultural and historical value and cannot be allowed to fail. We have to keep the churches operational, as they are in use. We cannot keep them operational without spending money on them. They already exist and are consecrated, so we can't just sell them off or anything. We must keep them.I thank my opponent for making this debate and wish him luck.Sources:1. http://www.charitywatch.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...;

negative: No mosque at ground zero as long as no churches in Saudi Arabia. Newt Gingrich. "there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."[13]

negative: Aboriton should remain illegal Let's go through Con's points and see where he fails to rebut my argument. Then I will restate my argument. His comments in bold, mine are plainWhat I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain.But the problem is this: Who are YOU or ANYONE ELSE to decide what lives are less valuable? If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves.YOU TOO are a clump of cells. Everyone is. That argument is completely absurd. We are all clumps of cells. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing.Aborting does not equal letting die. Tearing apart an infant from the uterus is not letting, its doing. These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not?The zygote is a living cell. You say I have convinced you that it is human. It follows therefore that it is a living human. Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified.Possibly is not the same as actually. This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? What do you mean don't have a body? Who said an embryo is not a body? I say it is a body, a human body, albeit a small one and one that needs to develop to become an ADULT body. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal.Do I win? Absolutely not! I do not concede that. Please read my actual arguments. I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I explicitly stated that of course all abortions should remain illegal and all are bad. The point was that by your own logic you should admit that many abortions are wrong and should be illegal. That would be a compromise position for me, but a better one than the current situation. Now, on to my argument. It consists of 3 simple premises:1) Abortion is the direct killing of life in the womb2) The life in the womb is human3) The government has the duty to protect humans from being murdered As for premise 1, this should be obvious. Any abortion procedure has as its direct goal the termination of the life in the womb. It is accomplished in ways that are explicitly designed to terminate the pregnancy usually by first killing the fetus and then expelling it. However, direct explusion even before killing it would be murder because it is the inducement of certain death of the unborn child for the sake of ending the pregnancy. How could anyone doubt that this is direct killing or at least has the same quality as direct killing of the life in the womb? Premise 2 is simple, you concede this point and I have defended it elsewhere: You have convinced me that these are indeed humans.Premise 3 should be relatively uncontraversial.

negative: Basic income tax should be abolished Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service

negative: Basic income tax should be abolished Reduces the price of goods

negative: Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood should be defunded. They are an organization which lies to their clients, has unsafe environments for women, and are money hungry. If you feel that Planned Parenthood is a good organization which deserves government funding, I would love to debate this topic with you!

negative: This house believes churches should not involve themselves in political campaigns. I can’t be bothered to make this round look pretty. “Moreover, saying that churches have to act in x way is nonsensical because there's no resolutional warrant for this.“ This is equivalent to saying that the statement “If one wants to get to New York from Virginia, one should drive north” does not imply that one has to drive north to get to New York, or that “If one wants to draw a square, one should draw four sides” does not imply that one must draw four sides to draw a square. The only difference between these examples and the resolution of this debate is that the “if” was not specified, which is not a problem, given that my first proposition was solely devoted to proving that the only goal one could hold in doing politics is to adhere to rational principles, thus giving us “If one wants to build politics on rational principles, churches should not be involved in politics”, wherein the specific “if” specified was the only one logically coherent and possible. Note: This is not a new argument because the entirety of premiss one (and the debate as a whole) led to the formulation that “If political systems should be based on reason [...]”. “His entire argument resides on the assumption that "this is just what it means to be a church"” This is blatantly absurd - imagine a debate on the validity of “A = A”. If Pro said that A must equal A because, well, A is just defined as being A (i.e. when one says “A”, the sentence would retain its meaning if one had replaced it with “A”), and Con responded by saying that it was “unfair for Pro to restrict me to holding that A is defined as A, since I think that A is really B”, he would be disregarded completely. My argument is completely tautological in nature. “Church” is synonymous with “A group of people with one factor in common: faith”, so, when I say that “A church is a group of people with one factor in common: faith”, what I am really saying is simply that “A church is a church”, which, unless my opponent wishes to resort to equivocation to argue against my position, is obviously true and not “unfair” by any reasonable standard. Note: this is not a new argument, considering my previous rebuttals explicitly set out to prove this synonymity. I’m merely reproducing the argument in different terms in order to reiterate why Con is wrong on all counts. “It goes entirely dropped from his last round.” I did so because none of their actual implications were dangerous. I could accept both of Con’s observations (which, if you actually look at Round 2, were only that I have the BOP and that the resolution does not specify any specific type of involvement, both of which pose no problems) without my case being harmed at all. “by saying that they should not participate in politics, that restricts their ability to vote (i.e. participate) if they're a member of the church.” This is a total misinterpretation of my point. I specifically addressed the fact that there is no such violation of autonomy by analogy to one who “may argue that one should not regularly inject heroin while still holding that one should be free to do so.“ Let me remind the reader that my opponent has not substantiated how freely choosing not to do something is equivalent to not having been able to do that thing in the first place. “He also responds by saying that if his case is true then autonomy via belief in faith cannot lead to benefits, but first he's not actually winning on his case so this doesn't matter” And if I am winning on the case, it definitely does matter. “Autonomy isn't a means to a better end, rather it's an end in and of itself. Autonomy is the benefit, which is coming from the first part of the paragraph I cited.” Extend the principles behind Prop 1.31: “ If [a thing] were not worthwhile, there would be no reason to be involved in it (or to even care about it in the least), thus making any interest [in it] itself irrational (making discussing its issues worthless to begin with, which is contrary to the premiss of debate (by debating, we ourselves are asserting the importance and therefore rational value of [that thing]))” “Insofar as he isn't, and since I'm arguing that it does lead to a reduction of human worth, if there's clear negatives to removing it, we have no reason to remove it.” Extend Prop 1.2, in addition to the idea from Prop 1.31 that by even discussing this we place some importance on the issue: “For one to advocate something which is not in-line with reality, one must advocate something which cannot be, making the advocacy useless and self-contradictory.” “Then, extend out the second part of my case.” If my negations stand, then this is pointless, so I will only ask the readers to focus on whether or not I have successfully negated the relevance to the debate of his argument. “My argument is that if you affirm, then this will happen.“ My opponent’s bridge between his arguments and the resolution totally nonsensical. Quoting myself: “Taken in the abstract, the resolution is only referring to churches generally - there are only two factors to consider here: abstract politics and abstract churches. My opponent’s attempt to concretize the resolution fails for this reason [...] just because the removal of the Republican party now would result in devastation does not mean that the removal of the Republican party in itself is a bad thing.” “The entirety of my advocacy in the negative case (All members of a religious church will have the right to vote in elections for political office.) is literally the status quo.” Ok. So? “There's nothing theocratic about having the right to vote.“ My initial round proved that any church in politics must be acting on the basis of faith (and what is theocracy other than rule on the basis of faith and religion rather than rights or justness?). “even if he wanted to contest this, he doesn't actually give us any kind of reason as to why this would be bad.“ Premiss 3. “Theoretical ideas, as he concedes his case is, are only valuable insofar as they have real-world implications and reasons to prefer the ideals.” Let me go over this once again. I first showed that “If something was useful, it would be useful in reality, making it in-line with reality and therefore not irrational”, which means that if something was irrational it must inherently not be useful (if something was irrational and useful it would be as logical as a square circle). I then proved that faith was irrational. The conclusion is plain: faith can never be useful under any circumstances, negating all of my opponent’s attempts to assert otherwise. “Extend the three responses I make to the 2.1 section of his case.” I’ve dealt with all of this in my last round. “We can change the way we perceive churches.” Referring to different things using the same name is called “equivocation”. You can’t just randomly redefine terms in the middle of a debate when your opponent can’t respond. “by definition churches are defined as such based on their beliefs, not their actions, so the actions they take are irrelevant to their defining as a church.” I’ve dealt with this by showing that belief is an action. “He also argues that there's a distinction between belief and action, but this is absurd.” No, I argued that there is no such distinction. Belief is action. “I may believe that murder is okay and justifiable, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go shoot up a shopping mall” I never made the claim that you would. “He makes the argument that belief affects our future decision making, but never provides any kind of warrant for this.” I did explicitly give warrant for this - “[T]he “believer” is not a hypocrite [when it comes to holding faith] [( If he was,]he would no longer be able to be considered part of a church, by my opponent’s definition, since he would have shown that he does not truly believe))“, thus showing that one must always make the choice to have faith in faith and act in accordance to faith in order to remain a part of a church (which is a blatant example of what I meant). “Until he provides a warrant [...] he can't sufficiently warrant this point, and thus can't win the debate.” I have shown that every member of a church must hold the conviction that reason is invalid. Therefore, every action done by a church is done by people who do not believe in reason and are operating on the most basic assumption that reason is unimportant. This is all that my argument was meant to show, no more, no less. “He's not warranting why if God is infinite he can't be comprehended.” I’ve done so absolutely through syllogism, and, if one reads it in anything but the least charitable way, keeping in mind the common definitions of the words that I use, one will see that my argument is immune from and already deals with all of the points my opponent brings up. “He assumes his argument is true and uses that truth to defend his argument.” Quoting my last round: “My response is that, if my argument holds water, it is literally impossible for any of those theorists to be right, and, [...] their fallibility is not impossible while the falseness of a sound syllogism[is.]” If my opponent doubts the soundness of my syllogism, I advise him to read my defence of it once more. ”I've already outlined several scenarios where faith and reason co-exist” Let me just reiterate (from P.1) that, if a conversation operates under the assumption that it is only rational to say A is A, saying “A is really B” is totally incoherent and self-defeating, no matter what. Self-negating statements must be thrown out. Summary: My opponent reminds me to not make any new arguments and believes that this will leave his assertions unscathed. He fails to realize, however, that literally everything he says was contradicted by something I’ve said previously. The voter must only read my arguments (in specific, my main syllogism and its justifications) carefully, with an eye for detail and nuance, to realize that I have completely filled my burden of proof.

negative: Universal Health Care in the US "Okay, but if the government didn't take our money, we wouldn't have anything. We wouldn't have public school, social security, agricultural programs, welfare, legitimately every government program ever done." It is nessesary for the government to fund some programs, but taxes are already high for people and UHC would make taxes more expensive to taxpayers."nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families." 82 million people out of 320 million is not 1/3 people, but 1/4. My site says it's closer to 10%. I think the Centers for disease control is more reliable then PBS because the CDC is a .gov site whereas PBS is a .org site.You said that a church would have to pay almost $1 million a year for healthcare costs from our similar fiscal estimates. But is this actually feisible?80% of people are religious to some level. Of them, https://en.wikipedia.org...;(a little reliable and very convienent) states that about 50% of Christains attend religious worship services, this is probably more common for religious minorities, since they tend to be more religious. 20% of Christains tithe, but if all other donations get added up, and since some tithers pay more then a tithe, lets assume the church gets paid by about half of their attendence tithing since it's about equivilant..8*.5*.5=.2 or 20% of the US population tithing to the Church.The US GDP per capita (their annual salary) is about $57,000 (https://data.worldbank.org...)(), $18 trillion when including the whole nation(https://data.worldbank.org...).18 trillion*.2*.1(a tithe)=$360 billion a year going to churches. $360 billion/350,000=$1,028,517 per yearThere are matinence costs, but these are nominal by comparision. If the church raises $1,028,517 and has to pay $914,284 in the name of their religion, since Jesus says, "Sell all you have and give to the poor", then the church could donate their money to paying for poor people's health insurance, with enough cash to sustain the church worker's lives.Jesus sais to help the poor, so if the church donates money to people to pay for their healthcare bill, then this is a religious cause for the church. If your an atheist, this doesn't stop you from going into churches and asking them for health insurance money. I'm an atheist an I plan on going to church. Since Churches can afford it, a truly Christain Church would pay for it. Given that they have about $110,000 left over, this can pay for their annual expenses.Vote Con.Thanks, I await your big boy response.

negative: Should LGBT people be condemned (based on a christian view) Tell me what you think. Should LGBT people be condemned for what they can't help? Or how they feel? If you believe they should be condemned to hell, tell me why

negative: Should all chruches be demolished All churches should be demolished, they are a waste of space

negative: Aboriton should remain illegal I shall rebut!It is my argument however that in every other instance, abortion should be illegal.Including rape? Or does this count as "life of mother" circumstances?We have 4 rounds, so we can debate that if it is deemed debatable.__________________________________________________________Abortion is the direct killing of the life in the womb.Given. I agree that it is direct killing and deigned to kill._______________________________________________The Life in the womb is a human beingUmm...Is it human blood that is spilled in an abortion?I'll say yes.Is it a human heart that stops beating? I'll say yes.Is it a human embryo that is destroyed? Is it human arms and human legs that are torn off?I'll say yes.What do the following questions have in common? They all have somehing extra to them. The heart may stop beating, but the human does not develope a heart until x time. Is the humans' arms and legs torn off? They don't develope arms and legs until x time.You see, the question up until x point, these cells are just that: cells. I concede that they are human cells, but so are the skin cells you kill when you sit down. Or scratch yourself. Or eat.________________________________________________________________________Once we say that the government does not need to protect human children...who does the government protect?"Children" is a strong term. Is a clump of cells a child? What if it is only a clump of cells?Finally, I find it very difficult to defend a system that allows abortion but not the murder of 5-month olds. I don't see any objective and NON-arbitrary criterea that could make the two different. Because of this, I think that abortion is an implicit acceptance of all murder and all injustice into society. I will show you.According to your OWN source, pain systems don't develope until 9 weeks of developent. Fingerprints don't develope until 14 weeks of developement. Brainwaves don't develope until 6 weeks. The heart doesn't develope until 18 days.Now, what is the difference between a 5-week-old zygote and a 5-month-old child? A heartbeat. Blood. Thought. Pain. Fingerprints. Everything that makes us human._________________________________________________________Now, I'll give examples where it might be MORE responsible to abort a child.1) It may fall into a vegitated state.2) It does not have parents.3) It will go to an adoption home.4) It may grow up in an abusive home.5) The parents are too poor.6) It may be disabled.7) It might be ill.8) It might be mentally ill.9) They dont want a child.______________________If zygotes cannot feel pain up until 8 weeks, why not have a law that, until 8 weeks, you can abort?_____________________________________________________________________________________Now: if we make abortion illegal, then all cases will become deadly.Untrained people will attempt to abort children, and this is very likely to kill the parent.

negative: The churches should expand their gambling operations "Dishonest gamble money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.' Proverbs 13:11

negative: Is Religion Still Relevant in the Modern Day Is religion still relevant in the modern day (21st Century)? I am looking for any reasonable (non extremist) religious person. Of any religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims, anyone. Debate Me! I believe that a lot of the things said in most religious teachings are irrelevant in the modern day, and that the intention of religion is now not needed.

negative: The death penalty should remain in place I believe that the death penalty should remain in place and I'd like to do a short debate about this.

negative: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. I believe that there sould not be a tax exemption for Churches. Con must argue the opposite, of course:) Definitions:Tax exempt: To be free from, or not subject to, taxation by regulators or government entities.*Some information about the topic: US churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding**. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. Acceptance first.Sources: *http://www.investopedia.com... **Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America, 2nd edition

negative: Libertarians should vote for Romney Sources:http://www.imperfectparent.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...In theory, it seems like Gary Johnson would be the best man to vote for in order to get the voices of Libertarians into government. In fact, I will agree that Gary Johnson is the best man for the job if you want a president that supports the policies that a Libertarian does. This debate, however, is not about who best embodies the Libertarian agenda. It is about who a Libertarian should vote for. And that man is Mitt Romney. Here's why:1. Look at history.Something very similar to what might happen if Gary Johnson gets a large following already happened in American history. The election of 1912. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and came in second place. Taft ran as a Republican and came in third place. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, won. He did not recieve a majority of the votes, 42 percent. The Progressive Party and the Republican Party recieved a combined total of 50% of the votes. Had Theodore Roosevelt not run, the Republican Party would have likely won the presidency. A third party candidate actually had a chance of winning one time, and that chance ruined the election for everyone who swayed Republican. I envision this happening again.2. Mitt Romney is closer to Libertarian Ideas.Here are just a few important issues to compare (I got the chart off of imperfectparent.com, my edits are in italics): The final score is:Republicans: 10Democrats: 6Tie: 2In the face of the fact that third parties have never won the presidency, and that Romney, while not perfect, is the more Libertarian of the two, I declare that Mitt Romney is, in fact, the best choice for a Libertarian for president. Issue Republican Party Democratic Party Libertarian Party Social Security Social security should be privatized (not to be confused with private savings accounts, but rather, private investments). Arguably closer to Libertarian. Social security should remain a government sponsored insurance plan for retirees. Believe in an "opt out" policy in which one can choose to privately invest (they believe this to be the better option) or go with a government sponsored social security plan. Jobs Pro small business. Supports giving small businesses tax incentives so that more jobs can be created.Tie. Encourage businesses to keep jobs here and not outsource them overseas. Supports unions and advocates for the rights of low income workers.Tie. Free market should dictate the job market. Economy Supports free market competition and entrepreneurship, corporate deregulation and cutting entitlement spending.Closer to Libertarian. Increase taxes to cut deficit. Believes large deficit negatively affects government services and that low deficits stimulate the economy. 100% Free Market. Security/Defense Believe in a proactive military and defense. Supports building weapons and technology that serve to protect our nation. Believe that peace is achieved through strong defense. Increase defense and research budget. Believe in a limited missile defense. Oppose nuclear buildup in the U.S. Believe that peace is achieved through worldwide relationship building.Closer to Libertarian. Believe in reducing nuclear arms in the U.S. Military should be used to protect people's livery and property only. Legal/Tort Reform Supports tort reform and limiting victims compensation, especially for frivolous lawsuits. Oppose tort reform and oppose limiting liability of doctors and/or businesses.Closer to Libertarian. Generally does not support tort reform. Tax Reform Supports tax cuts, low interest rates and the repeal of the death tax penalty in effort to stimulate the economy.Arguably closer to Libertarian. Generally supports raising taxes on the wealthy, lowering taxes for the middle class. Stridently opposes all government imposed taxes and employer withdrawal of employees money for tax purposes. Immigration Generally supports closed or tight borders and tracking system for foreign travelers. Support illegal alien's ability and right to become citizens and giving them more protections under the law.Closer to Libertarian. Support open borders. Faith Religion strongly associated with Republican party. Advocate free exercise of religion. Strict adherence between the separation between church and state. Promote secular issues and a more secular nation.Closer to Libertarian. Strong belief in separation of church and state and by contrast, Libertarians hold a strong belief in freedom of religion. Education Promote school choice/vouchers and homeschooling. Supports voluntary student supported prayer in school. Opposes gender and race quotes in colleges.Closer to Libertarian. Oppose vouchers. Increase NCLB federal funding. Enact new taxes to decrease class size and hire new teachers. End government financial support of public schools, believe that all public schools should be privatized with tax credit for tuition. Abortion Generally pro-life with emphasis on promoting alternatives to abortion. Generally pro-choice owning the mantra, "Safe, legal, rare."Closer to Libertarian. Adamantly pro-choice but oppose any government financial aid to subsidize abortions. Energy Oppose Kyoto treaty. Support tax incentives for energy production.Closer to Libertarian. Wish to find environmentally friendly energy sources and solutions. Oppose increased drilling, especially in the U.S. Supports deregulation and believes all government energy resources should be turned over to private ownership. Opposes government conservation of energy. Heathcare Keep healthcare private. Would like to impose caps on malpractice suits. Supports reformed medicare to give seniors more choices.Closer to Libertarian. Supports more federally funded healthcare programs. Strongly supports a complete separation of healthcare and state. Supports the deregulation of the healthcare industry. Foreign Policy Spread Democracy. Supports UN reform. Wants to stop WMD proliferation countries. Believe that nations who support terrorist are just as bad as the terrorist themselves.Arguably closer to Libertarian. Strongly supports worldwide coalitions and multi-national programs. Supports aid for disadvantaged countries. Supports the UN. End all foreign aid because it's the same as welfare for nations. Believes that aid perpetuates independence on your government. Campaign Finance Reform Generally support soft money contributions from individuals but supports limiting it from corporations. Also supports full disclosure.Closer to Libertarian. Favor more regulation with spending limits on individuals and corporations. No restrictions on contributions form any legal resident. Believe that politicians holding an office should not be able to run for another seat until term is over. Environment Supports privatizing federal land. Believe in cap and trade market based air pollution reductions and that the market should regulate itself.Closer to Libertarian. Generally puts the interest of the environment over business. Wants to maintain federal land under government control. Believes that land and animals should be sold to private organizations or ranchers and taken out of the hands of the government because private citizens will care for it better. Guns Limited gun control.Closer to Libertarian. Strict gun control. No control whatsoever. Gay Rights Oppose gay marriage. Supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Generally supports gay marriage although Democrats remain largely divided on the issue, as some only support civil unions.Closer to Libertarian. Pro private choice and equality including marriage.

negative: Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill. So to sum up, Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 because he was a war hero and did the best he could for the country.

negative: religion should be banned Religion should be banned. There is no proof, benefit, nor scientific evidence of a god. Religion encourages stupidity in children from a young age by preventing questioning of religious preaching, this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities.

negative: remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. vote me

negative: Churches Ought not be Taxed Perhaps my opponent has merely forgotten to reply. I will check the comments section should he place his rebuttal there.

negative: Abortion should remain legal. I am a little new to this site. This is my first debate on this site so forgive me if my arguments are not as well structured.

negative: remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Vote me for conduct due to forfit

negative: Abortion should remain legal. In Round 3, I, the Pro, will ask my opponent, the Con, 5 questions that they will answer in Round 3. In Round 3, they will also ask me 5 questions that I will answer in Round 4 before I begin my rebuttals. Definition of Terms. These are to be accepted throughout the debate unchanged and unargued. Abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [1]. Coming from Latin word abioriri, aborior, abortus meaning miscarry, be aborted, pass away [2]. Human Being/Person- A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance [3]. Murder- The crime of deliberately killing a person [4a]. The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [4b]. Involuntary Manslaughter- The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally [5]. Miscarriage- Loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy [6a]. Stillborn- When a baby dies after the 20th week of pregnancy [6b]. Life- The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death [7]. Rape- The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will [8]. Sources 1. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. . http://www.latin-dictionary.net... 3. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 4a. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4b. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 5. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 6a. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 6b. . http://www.babycenter.com... 7. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 8. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

negative: Churches Should be Taxed Thank you so much! You were a good opponent and had a good idea. Just happens to be against the law. whoops. Thank you again!

negative: Churches Should be Taxed Wow. I believe I have lost this debate. I am going to forfeit; there is no way I can beat you, stubborn as I am. I believe the evidence you have put forth has put me in a position that I can only help but see that your point is stronger than mine. Congratulations.

negative: (as a Christian Church) allow the ordination of gay and lesbian priests The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature

negative: the BBC should be free to blaspheme Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.