query: Is cell phone radiation safe?

positive: Should we be worried about cell phone raiation I think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think.

positive: They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours. Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.

positive: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans (OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)

positive: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.

positive: Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14 I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.

positive: They can cause cancer We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.

positive: Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. I will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults."http://www.theblaze.com..."Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use"http://www.mobiledia.com..."One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones."http://news.yahoo.com..."350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone "subscribers" and those who didn't have a phone,"http://health.usnews.com..."to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer."http://www.cancer.gov..."The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors"http://gizmodo.com..."It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit "non-ionizing radiation" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain"http://www.itwire.com..."Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer."http://www.bbc.co.uk..."In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls."http://www.cancer.org..."A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones."http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com..."Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer"http://www.usaweekend.com...-"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer.

negative: Advertisements do more harm than good 1) Television is greatly abused for commercial purposes and other types of uses, in which audiences are constantly sold to: Advertisers try to convince the audience that the solution to a problem or the fulfilment of a desire can only be achieved through the purchase of a product. It is designed towards blind acceptance by the viewer. In this way TV negatively affects the human mind, by limiting the possibilities of conscious choice, and promotes a consumer society. It can be also misused to urge people to buy even things they do not need by subliminal advertising. 2)People spend the biggest part of their time view advetisments : According to the statistics, the average American child watches 262 views ads per week. That's how ads reduce the quality of real life by narrowing people's outlook, limiting the variety of free time activities, affecting family relations by reducing conversation, and even having an impact on health by discouraging exercise. ""Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 PM, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children." Television Children and adolescents view 400 00 ads per year on TV alone.13 This occurs despite the fact that the Children's Television Act of 1990 (Pub L No. 101–437) limits advertising on children's programming to 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends and 12 minutes/hour on weekdays. However, much of children's viewing occurs during prime time, which features nearly 16 minutes/hour of advertising.14 A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl now costs $2.3 million but reaches 80 million people.15 Movies A 2000 FTC investigation found that violent movies, music, and video games have been intentionally marketed to children and adolescents.16 Although movie theaters have agreed not to show trailers for R-rated movies before G-rated movies in response to the release of the FTC report, children continue to see advertising for violent media in other venues. For instance, M-rated video games, which according to the gaming industry's own rating system are not recommended for children younger than 17 years, are frequently advertised in movie theaters, video game magazines, and publications with high youth readership.17 Also, movies targeted at children often prominently feature brand-name products and fast food restaurants.18 In 1997–1998, 8 alcohol companies placed products in 233 motion pictures and in 1 episode or more of 181 TV series.18 Print Media According to the Consumer's Union,19 more than 160 magazines are now targeted at children. Young people see 45% more beer ads and 27% more ads for hard liquor in teen magazines than adults do in their magazines.20 Despite the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, tobacco advertising expenditures in 38 youth-oriented magazines amounted to $217 million in 2000.21 The Internet An increasing number of Web sites try to entice children and teenagers to make direct sales. Teenagers account for more than $1 billion in e-commerce dollars,22 and the industry spent $21.6 million on Internet banner ads alone in 2002.23 More than 100 commercial Web sites promote alcohol products.23 The content of these sites varies widely, from little more than basic brand information to chat rooms, "virtual bars," drink recipes, games, contests, and merchandise catalogues. Many of these sites use slick promotional techniques to target young people.23,24 In 1998, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Pub L No. 105–277) was passed, which mandates that commercial Web sites cannot knowingly collect information from children younger than 13 years. These sites are required to provide notice on the site to parents about their collection, use, and disclosure of children's personal information and must obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using, or disclosing this information.25 MARKETING TECHNIQUES Advertisers have traditionally used techniques to which children and adolescents are more susceptible, such as product placements in movies and TV shows,26 tie-ins between movies and fast food restaurants,18 tie-ins between TV shows and toy action figures or other products,7 kids' clubs that are linked to popular shows, and celebrity endorsements.27 Cellular phones are currently being marketed to 6- to 12-year-olds, with the potential for directing specific advertisers to children and preteens. Coca-Cola reportedly paid Warner Bros. Studios $150 million for the global marketing rights to the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,"28 and nearly 20% of fast food restaurant ads now mention a toy premium in their ads.29 Certain tie-in products may be inappropriate for children (eg, action figures from the World Wrestling Federation or an action doll that mutters profanities from an R-rated Austin Powers movie). Children's advertising protections will need to be updated for digital TV, which will be in place before 2010. In the near future, children watching a TV program will be able to click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during the program.30 Interactive games and promotions on digital TV will have the ability to lure children away from regular programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an environment that lacks clear separation between content and advertising. Interactive technology may also allow advertisers to collect vast amounts of information about children's viewing habits and preferences and target them on the basis of that information.31 SPECIFIC HEALTH-RELATED AREAS OF CONCERN Tobacco Advertising Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million/day ($11.2 billion/year) on advertising and promotion.32 Exposure to tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor than having family members and peers who smoke33 and can even undermine the effect of strong parenting practices.34 Two unique and large longitudinal studies have found that approximately one third of all adolescent smoking can be attributed to tobacco advertising and promotions.35,36 In addition, more than 20 studies have found that children exposed to cigarette ads or promotions are more likely to become smokers themselves.37,38 Recent evidence has emerged that tobacco companies have specifically targeted teenagers as young as 13 years of age.39 Alcohol Advertising Alcohol manufacturers spend $5.7 billion/year on advertising and promotion.40 Young people typically view 2000 beer and wine commercials annually,41 with most of the ads concentrated in sports programming. During prime time, only 1 alcohol ad appears every 4 hours; yet, in sports programming, the frequency increases to 2.4 ads per hour.42,43 Research has found that adolescent drinkers are more likely to have been exposed to alcohol advertising.44–50 Given that children begin making decisions about alcohol at an early age—probably during grade school50—exposure to beer commercials represents a significant risk factor.46,50 Minority children may be at particular risk.51"" relevant website: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... bam! vote for me

negative: Mobile phones should be banned in schools! No " they help independent study "You'll have someone's eye out with that" used to be the refrain of teachers in my day. In malevolent hands, a pencil, a rubber, even a piece of paper could become a lethal weapon in class, and that's before we got on to compasses and Bunsen burners. A mobile is the same: a potentially potent tool for learning but strangely feared in a school pupil's hand, where it is assumed to wreak havoc with concentration, unleash cyber bullying and surreptitiously video up teachers' skirts. But isn't it also madness when schools that cannot afford modern IT facilities ignore the powerful computers in every pupils' pocket? I was amazed when I visited my old school recently: having remarked how sorry I felt for teachers in the mobile era, several teachers immediately declared how useful they were in class. There's even an acronym for it: BYOD, or Bring Your Own Device. As one teacher has argued in the Guardian, this is the future: students using their trusted devices rather than a machine they leave in school at the end of each day. Jo Debens, a geography teacher at Priory School, Portsmouth, a comprehensive with a mixed intake, was dashing out to take 30 pupils orienteering when we spoke: her students were testing whether it was easier to use an OS map or a mobile phone's mapping services. Earlier this year, the school drew up a "mobile device policy" in consultation with students. Mobile phones are allowed in school and used in class at the teacher's discretion, with a clear system of sanctions applied for misuse. Since the policy was introduced, only 1.4% of negative behavioural incidents have been connected with mobiles. Pupils record homework tasks on their phone's calendar (why do they forget homework diaries but never their textbooks?) and in Debens's geography classes they use the camera function to record things and report back to class. They also use mobile internet for independent research. "We're always being told as teachers that we should give pupils differentiated learning and personalise it. Now they can," says Debens of using mobiles. "Like anything, it's only useful in the hands of the user. They are not the be-all and end-all. We would have death by Wikipedia if all people were doing was cutting and pasting from them." "I was very anti phones," admits Nasim Jahangir, a business and economics teacher at Wyggeston and Queen Elizabeth I College, Leicester. Several years ago, however, she incorporated smartphones into lessons as she "learned to teach in a different way" " with an emphasis on independent study. She admits it is probably easier to ensure his A-level classes use phones constructively but she thinks it has improved behaviour. "The whole atmosphere in the class has changed," she says, becoming less adversarial, with students policing themselves over inappropriate phone use. What about pupils who cannot afford a smartphone? And what about children running up big bills doing school work on their phones? Jahangir ensures his tweeting and mobile phone work is accessible to all on the school's intranet. Debens says her school provides Wi-Fi and portable dongles with Wi-Fi so pupils are not paying for their own study. "We have people who come to school without a coat or without having had any breakfast," she says, "but they always have a phone." http://www.theguardian.com... The question of whether cell phones should be allowed in schools has been hotly debated over the years. The reality is, bans on cell phones are hard for schools to enforce. A 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study found that 65 percent of cell-owning teens at schools that completely ban phones bring their phones to school every day anyway. Most schools now allow students to have cell phones but try to require them to be turned off during class because they can be disruptive and distracting (the Pew study found that 43 percent of all teens who take their phones to school say they text in class at least once a day). So, before you add your child to your family plan, read the pros and cons of allowing cell phones in school: 1.You can be in touch with your children, and know their whereabouts. (The Pew study noted that 48 percent of parents use the phone to monitor their child's location.) 2. Your kids can reach you in the event of an emergency, and vice versa. 3. If in danger, your children can reach the authorities or a medical provider. 4. Phones can be silenced during class or study periods, and active only in appropriate places. 5. Cell phones create a convenience that was previously unavailable. 6. With cell phones, you can easily reach your kids for any reason: to ask them questions, change plans, or to simply say hello. http://life.familyeducation.com... There are some other main reasons for which mobile should not be banned in schools; 1. Social: A kid studying in school bears all the rights to contact to friends and family during the school, because having a cell phone inside the school is not disturbing class, this is because the debate is about mobile cells should be banned in school not in class! though it does not create any disturbance for the classes. All the kids feel special with the surroundings and want to be socially recognized, suppose you are a student and you are with a group of other students that all o them have mobile phones, how do you feel if you are the only one not having a cell phone? the answer is clear that you feel awkward! You can create group studies or organize group studies with your friends, that is only done through the mobile phones, because sending letters to post is not working anymore. 2. Safety: Having a cell phone helps you to be safe; now a days no one knows what may happen next! though having a phone will help you to be in contact with your family/parents or any police office. 3. Reachable: Mobile phones makes you reachable all the time, for any emergency, you have the right to have a mobile phone in the school but you can switch it off during the class, or maybe you can put it in silent mode during the class, hence you are actually reachable and you are not disturbing the class. 4. Technology: Kids are bright not, and they find google the easy way to find any information they want, as more as technology is improving, kids need to be parallel with it. Mobile phone will help them to be aware of everything happening to the world. 5. A phone call can help you to save your life or somebody's life! They can get in touch when necessary The main benefit of having a phone is that your child can get in touch with you whenever they need to. This allows you to feel they are safe and gives them assurance knowing they can call home if they have a problem. They can ring the emergency services if the need arises If your child is in immediate danger, they can use their phone to call not only you but the emergency services. This is of great benefit and could potentially save your child's life. Even if your child has no phone credit they can still get in touch with the police, fire or medical services as all emergency calls are free. Allows you to keep track of their whereabouts Children, especially teenagers, can be extraordinarily elusive and can disappear with their friends for hours without notifying anyone. In the summer many kids will go to the park after school or pop down to the shops at lunchtime. Letting them have a mobile phone will allow you to know where they are " provided their phone is on! They can easily be discreet Mobile phones can be very discreet if turned off or on to silent. As long as your child remembers to do this their phone won't cause a distraction in class, but they will stay have a way to contact you if they need to. Giving them a standard rather than a smartphone will also reduce the risk of distraction. www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1072022

negative: cell phone being banned while driving Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the previous round. Arguments extended. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.

negative: Why cell phones should not be allowed in classrooms Yes there is a possibility of the phone's being dangerous during an emergency as they could sound off during a break in but a solution for that is to have a rule in the class stating that when one enters the classroom their cellphones need to be turned to silent. With the research projects , yes students might goof off and go on their social media pages rather than researching for their assignment, but in the end they'd be the ones hurting their grade. It's on them to do the work or goof off.

negative: My 100th Debate: Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200 Rebuttals A1 Things humans can do: Sure we can do it, that’s not denied. But shipping thousands of regular citizens to Mars has its issues. Scott Kelly US astronaut along with Musa Manarov just completed a yearlong International Space Station (ISS) mission to study the effects of space on the body [1] As you can see from the data it takes two weeks for the immune system to bounce back from space. 25% of muscle mass is lost in the 1st two weeks in space and takes a month to regenerate once back on Earth. Three months before pre flight body mass is recouped. After just 6 months in space the structural integrity of bones never returns to pre flight status and radiation exposure increases risk of cancer and neurological issues for a lifetime. According to “NASA's Efforts to Manage Health and Human Performance Risks for Space Exploration” (2015) report [2 p.40-44] there are 30 health concerns pertaining to deep space travel. The most serious are: Continuous CO2 exposure (6-20% over normal in space craft), behavioral/psychiatric issues due to long term confinement in a small craft, which are considered highly consequential (ISS is a bit longer than a football field [3]), There’s no phoning home or resupply craft to break up the monotony. Bone fractures due to loss of bone mass and integrity, cardiovascular issues due to micro gravity and radiation, in-flight medical capabilities should an event occur, they are less than stellar; inadequate nutrition due to limits of food storage and renal stone formation. Kidney stone are not a picnic to begin with, imagine in tight quarters? Ability to treat illness with drugs due to the unknowns of their effects in space and limitations on what can be carried, vision impairment and space radiation exposure sickness. Space radiation exposure is much greater in deep space than on ISS. The Van Allen Belts limit its exposure, not so in deep space. Beside lifelong potential for cancer and neurological issues, prolong exposure to space radiation can contribute of degenerative tissue disorders and infertility. Advanced shielding alone cannot augment exposure to galactic cosmic rays [2]. So, we have our colonist after 7 months in cramped quarters leaving the ship, with a good probability of being bonkers and suffering from multiple impairments, some lasting a lifetime; a lifetime being about 68 day by MIT researchers’ estimates if the Mars One project goes ahead [4]. To recuperate from some of these illnesses gravity is necessary, artificial gravity for stationary structures as yet to be developed [5]. Mars’ gravity is 36% of Earth’s. All just because we can? A2 Possible: Since the world is over populated as this debate assumes, Mars would give us much more space. But we have space here on Earth as stated in opening arguments. But, I will rephrase the figure previously given. 71% of Earth is water. Of the remaining 29% of surface area, 14% is dessert, 27% high mountains and arctic terrains. 56% of the Earth is not inhabited due to inhospitable environments [6]. Why risk the dangers and ills of space? Granted, when Europeans arrived in America to establish colonies they did not have technology, but they did have resupply ships coming and going between America and Europe with the wind to propel ships and only the weather as a concern, not radiation, or life support system failure. Furthermore, basic building materials, food, water, air and gravity were at hand and did not require importing. Unlike colonizing Mars, everything would have to be shipped at great cost. Eliminating the cost of building rockets and fuels alone saves between $30-100 billion [7]. Mars One claims of 6 billion for a single trip, which a one way ticket; price does not reflect the 3 unmanned prerequisite missions [13, 14]. You suggest we bring even water from Earth for plants? Fresh water here is at a premium and you want to ship it off planet [8]? At 8.34 pounds per gallon, that’s a lot of weight and fuel use to push it through space. A3 Liberty: Sure 10’s of thousands want the adventure of space and Mars. It’s their choice they can pay for it themselves, but not at the expense of NASA tax payer dollars where greater numbers can be helped with the funds to remediate overpopulation. Private corporations can do as they please, but there will be ramifications (discussed later). The multi billions used to send people to Mars can better be utilized here at home. A few thousand people will not solve the overpopulation problem here on Earth. Thousands are a mere drop in the bucket, an unwise decision to utilize so many resources for such few numbers. Inhabiting uninhabitable areas on Earth serves greater numbers of people for the greater good. A 4 Not enough space: Again there’s 56% of the Earth to make habitable that will enable the spreading of people over greater distances. As you said yourself temps on Mars are similar to Antarctica; there’s air and gravity there, no worrries in that front. No need for multibillion dollar space craft or suffering the illnesses of space. These locations are a much shorter distance away. Shipping cost to another planet a far more costly and benefits much fewer people. Future plans such as these: Undersea cities [9] as well as a skyscraper community in the Sahara As well as an Antarctic city (above) All are self sustaining alternatives where all the materials required are in our own backyard. A 5 Resources: Deuterium is produced on Earth from water, our Oceans have a bit of it [10], and is used in Nuclear power plants to create heavy water. Nuclear plants are being phased out all over the world due to upkeep cost and no safe storage for nuclear waste; very harmful to the environment. [11]. Solar and wind power are the fuels of the future. As for other useful things, you did not specify so I’ll consider the point null. A6 Already working on it/ Dependency: No one’s efforts are wasted. The technology developed for potential Mars habitats can be utilized to colonize uninhabitable areas of Earth. Mars is a cold pace, so is Antarctica, Siberia, and the North Polar Regions. Mars shelters need to produce air; high mountains and beneath the Oceans can utilize this tech. No one need lose their jobs. Besides, space will be continued to be explored for knowledge. So the rocket scientist can stay employed as well. No one said anything about banning people from going to Mars, just not for the purpose of colonization to relieve overpopulation. The small numbers will not alleviate a thing. A7 Beneficial: Under the Space Treaty of 1967 no celestial body can be appropriated by any nation. Claims can only be on the property brought onto a celestial body. If NASA puts down a space pod, the US can claim only the pod, but not the ground it sits on. However, a loop hole in the law might allow for private industries to own celestial property for economic purposes. Therefore, under the law, not be part of, nor have protections of the nation they are from [12]. A corporation would have rights to set up their own form of governance; which of course would be profit motivated. The civil liberties you now enjoy might not exist under a corporate regime. Then another business comes along, say.. from China and buys an existing manner will colonizing Mars expand countries or governments; only corporations with their individual systems of law. These very corporations can legally purchase the land under the NASA pod. I fail to see how the human condition would be made better. A 7 month trip in a cramped spaceship, you land sick and compromised for a lifetime and then are under the governance of a corporation? I think there was a 60’s movie called “Slaves in Space.” I will present my defense of Fire-wings rebuttals in the next round. To you my valued opponent. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. https://oig.nasa.gov... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://www.thespacereview.com... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. https://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://www.thenewatlantis.com... 13. http://edition.cnn.com... 14. http://www.mars-one.com...

negative: cell phone use in class the cell phone use in class is a new step up for a school lets say a school doesnt have good computers a kid can just pull out their phone

negative: cell phone should be allowed in middle school . nice.......................................................... But your kid use phone in class then get in college for thing they can't do (because they cheat) You say that kid any-ways --------->and you think that cool BULL**** ON THAT S**T. If my kids cheat I will make sure they do all the work again. Thank you again

negative: should kids be able to have phones by age 8 I think kids should have a phone by age 8

negative: Electric vehicles Silent electric cars can be a safety hazard.

negative: cell phone use good or bad state your debate i say that phones are good because without them then what will we use to call an ambulance or use it for some sort of emergency

negative: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!

negative: Food Irradiation Nuclear waste is non-existant when irradiating food, irradiating produce leaves ZERO traces of nuclear excess. Therefor making the citizens of america not sick, and healthy! :) :) :)

negative: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones. Actually, I am not a beginner. I've been doing debate for about 1 year. My time ran out so I accidentally forfeited. Calling my account a dummy account and myself a beginner goes against the conduct rules in this debate, which shows that I have a high chance of winning. But, since I accidentally forfeited last round, I will now present my arguments. Arguments I will present: 1. Bad for Health: 2. Games/ Game addiction Firstly, bad for health: Information below are from http://www.medicaldaily.com... and contain lots of information about bad health as a result of mobile phones. Negatively Affects Emotions The presence of a cell phone while two or more people are talking face-to-face can generate negative feelings toward the person who has his or her device visible. In two studies conducted at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, researchers studied the effects of a mobile device during a nose-to-nose conversation. In the first study, 37 pairs of strangers were asked to spend 10 minutes talking to each other about an interesting event that happened in their lives within the past month. Half of the participants were seated in a secluded area with a mobile device present on a desk nearby whereas the other half remained without a cellphone. The results of the study showed that those who had a mobile device nearby were perceived less positive by the stranger, compared to the other participants without a cell phone present. In the second study, researchers included 34 different pairs of strangers who were asked to discuss trivial topics while others were asked to discuss significant events that occurred in their life. Half of the participants chatted with a mobile device while with the stranger and the other half had a notebook. The results of the study showed that those who spoke about significant events in their lives with a notebook present experienced a feeling of closeness and trust in the stranger, unlike those with a cell phone. "These results demonstrate that the presence of mobile phones can interfere with human relationships, an effect that is most clear when individuals are discussing personally meaningful topics," said the researchers of the study. Increases Stress Levels The high frequency of cell phone use can have negative effects on our stress levels. The constant ringing, vibrating alerts, and reminders can put a cell phone user on edge. In a study conducted at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, researchers examined if there is a direct link between the psychosocial aspects of cell phone use and mental health symptoms in young adults. The participants of the study included 20 to 24 year olds who responded to a questionnaire, in addition to a one-year follow-up. Researchers found high mobile phone use was associated with stress and sleep disturbances for women, whereas high mobile phone use was associated with sleep disturbances and symptoms of depression in men. Overall, excessive cell phone use can be a risk factor for mental health issues in young adults. Increases Risk Of Illnesses In Your Immune System The incessant touching of your phone can harbor germs on your handset. The greasy, oily residue you may see on your cellphone after a day's use can contain more disease-prone germs than those found on a toilet seat. In a study conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Queen Mary, University of London, researchers sampled 390 cell phones and hands to measure for levels of bacteria. The results of the study showed that 92 percent of the cell phones sampled had bacteria on them " 82 percent of hands had bacteria " and 16 percent of cell phones and hands had E. Coli. Fecal matter can easily be transferred by cell phones from one person to another. Increases Risk Of Chronic Pain Cell phones require constant use of your hands, especially when sending text messages and e-mails. Responding to messages at rapid speed can cause pain and inflammation of your joints. Back pain is also common with increased cell phone use, especially if you hold the phone between your neck and shoulders as you multitask. "Long periods of cell phone use cause you to arch your neck and hold your body in a strange posture. This can lead to back pain," says Healthcentral.com. Increases Risk Of Eye Vision Problems Staring at your mobile device can cause problems in your vision later in life. Screens on mobile devices tend to be smaller than computer screens, which means you are more likely to squint and strain your eyes while reading messages. According to The Vision Council, more than 70 percent of Americans don't know or are in denial that they are susceptible to digital eye strain. Secondly, game addiction. Smart phones have lots of games, and games cause lots of problems. Look below: THE LEARNING BRAIN ON GAMES Practicing anything repetitively physically changes the brain. With time and effort, you get better at the specific task you're practicing, whether it's shooting at the enemy in a video game or hitting a baseball. Those repetitive actions and thoughts stimulate connections between brain cells, creating neural pathways between different parts of your brain. The more you practice a certain activity, the stronger that neural pathway becomes. That's the structural basis of learning. "Use it or lose it" applies not just to muscles in the body, but also the brain. Neural pathways that are not used eventually get pruned. In the early 2000s, most research suggested that perceptual and cognitive training was very specific to the task at hand. That's one of the problems with many brain training tools: it's easy for people to improve on the individual mini-tasks they're given"say, arranging a list in alphabetical order or completing a crossword puzzle"but those tasks don't always translate into better thinking in general. Video games seem to differ from other kinds of brain training. "Unlike some other brain training tools, video games activate the reward centers, making the brain more receptive to change," explains C. Shawn Green, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Studies show, for example, playing action video games enhances visual capabilities, such as tracking multiple objects, mentally rotating objects, and storing and manipulating them in the memory centers of the brain. That holds true even for the most maligned action-entertainment games. Such games also require players to think of an overall strategy, perform several tasks simultaneously, and make decisions that have both an immediate and long-term impact. "That's very much like the multi-tasking inherent in most jobs today," says Dr. Willis. "These young people may be better equipped to switch between tasks easily, adapt to new information, and modify their strategy as new input comes in." Useful skills, to be sure, but exercised excessively they can also become problems. After all, when kids become so accustomed to multi-tasking and processing large amounts of information simultaneously, they may have trouble focusing on a lecture in a classroom setting. THE VULNERABLE BRAIN ON VIDEO GAMES The very nature of action-entertainment games not only attracts young people with focus, attention, and anger issues (particularly in the case of violent games); it also tends to reinforce these negative behaviors. While a number of companies have tried to create beneficial games for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they've had limited success. "It's difficult to make games that are exciting for kids who have attention issues, but not so exciting that the game reinforces ADHD-like behaviors," says Dr. Hummer. Instead, kids with ADHD often play action video games to flood their senses with visual stimulation, motor challenges, and immediate rewards. In this environment, the ADHD brain functions in a way that allows these children to focus, so much so that they don't exhibit symptoms, such as distractibility, while gaming. "One of the big issues from a treatment perspective is: how do you tell a kid who has been running the world online and experiencing high degrees of sensory input to function in the real world, which is not very exciting comparatively?" says Dr. Greenfield. The stakes may be higher for a child with anger and behavior issues who finds solace in violent video games. While experts disagree about what (if any) impact violent games have on actual violent behavior, some research shows a link between playing violent games and aggressive thoughts and behavior. For a kid who already has an aggressive personality, that could be a problem, say experts, since video games reward those aggressive tendencies. In fact, two separate studies found that playing a violent video game for just 10"20 minutes increased aggressive thoughts compared to those who played nonviolent games.

negative: Texting while driving is just as dangerous as drinking or smoking while driving While many people's thoughts on texting while driving or "distracted" driving is that it's just as dangerous as drinking or smoking then driving they are wrong.

negative: Policy Debate - Transportation Infrastructure Contention 1: Inherency _A___US Ports are lacking security now Douglas Frantz, previously chief investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Managing Director of Kroll"s Business Intelligence Washington office, investigative reporter, 7/15/12, "Port security: U.S. fails to meet deadline for scanning of cargo containers", http://www.washingtonpost.com... The Obama administration has failed to meet a legal deadline for scanning all shipping containers for radioactive material before they reach the United States, a requirement aimed at strengthening maritime security and preventing terrorists from smuggling a nuclear device into any of the nation"s 300 sea and river ports. The Department of Homeland Security was given until this month to ensure that 100 percent of inbound shipping containers are screened at foreign ports. But the department"s secretary, Janet Napolitano, informed Congress in May that she was extending a two-year blanket exemption to foreign ports because the screening is proving too costly and cumbersome. She said it would cost $16 billion to implement scanning measures at the nearly 700 ports worldwide that ship to the United States. Instead, the DHS relies on intelligence-gathering and analysis to identify "high-risk" containers, which are checked before being loaded onto ships. Under this system, fewer than half a percent of the roughly 10 million containers arriving at U.S. ports last year were scanned before departure. The DHS says that those checks turned up narcotics and other contraband but that there have been no public reports of smuggled nuclear material. In response to the 9/11 Commission, Congress passed a law in 2007 specifying that no cargo container may enter the United States before being scanned with imaging equipment and a radiation-detection device. The administration"s failure to meet the deadline has left some members of Congress and outside experts concerned about whether the threat is being taken seriously enough. "I personally do not believe they intend to comply with the law," Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-author of the 2007 law, said in an interview. "This is a real terrorist threat, and it has a solution. We can"t afford to wait until a catastrophic attack." The DHS says monitors scan 99 percent of the containers for radiation after they arrive at U.S. ports. But experts say the monitors at U.S. ports are not sophisticated enough to detect nuclear devices or highly enriched uranium, which emit low levels of radiation. The Government Accountability Office has warned that a nuclear device could be detonated while at a port " containers often sit for days awaiting radiation checks " causing billions of dollars in damage in addition to the loss of life. Estimates of damage caused by a nuclear detonation at a major port range from tens of billions of dollars to $1 trillion. Shipping containers are potentially ideal for smuggling weapons, people and other illicit cargo; ensuring the integrity of the contents is difficult and costly. The standard container is 40 feet long and 8 feet high and holds more than 30 tons of cargo. A large vessel carries 3,000 or more containers from hundreds of different shippers and many ports. And a single container can hold cargo from many customers. Counterterrorism experts have worried about port vulnerability since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks, reportedly told interrogators he had considered sending explosives to the United States hidden inside a shipment of personal computers from Japan. States, including North and South Carolina, changes in container security measures are of great concern in these communities. __B__Major security risks are extremely high now at our ports. Hahn 12 (Congresswoman Janice Hahn, Congressional Documents and Publications, May 9, 2012, "Congresswoman Laura Richardson Asks GAO to Examine Port Security Vulnerabilities"; Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) News Release, http://richardson.house.gov...) Congresswoman Janice Hahn"s bill, H.R. 4005 "Gauging American Port Security Act" or Gaps Act, today successfully passed by a unanimous vote in the Homeland Security Committee. H.R. 4005 directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive classified examination of remaining gaps in port Security and prepare a plan to address them. "Pretending a threat doesn"t exist does not make it go away," Rep. Hahn said. "The lesson of 9/11 is to be vigilant and proactive in seeking out and preventing our country"s most pressing threats. More than a decade after 9/11, our ports remain possible points of entry for terrorists and their weapons. Ports are also a key part of our economy. If an attack were ever to occur, it would cause a catastrophic loss of jobs and damage to our economic recovery. This situation requires a legislative solution and I hope that the resulting blueprint will guide Congress in creating effective legislation to help guard our ports." Ships make 50,000 calls a year on U.S. ports, carrying two billion tons of freight and 134 million passengers. Each day our ports move both imports and exports totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods through all 50 states. Additionally, ports move 99.4 percent of overseas cargo volume by weight and generate $3.95 trillion in international trade. Unfortunately less than 3% of cargo coming into the country is scanned, giving terrorist opportunities to smuggle themselves or their weapons into the United States with little risk of detection. An attack on the Port of Los Angeles complex, for example, would cost billions to the regional economy and put thousands of port employees out of work and cause the demise of hundreds of local businesses.   Thus my partner Josh and I present the following plan Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in radio frequency identification and related technology for port security Our plan will be enforced through normal means. The affirmative team reserves the right to fiat and define all terms.  Solvency __A__An investment in Radio Frequency Identification will allow for improved security and efficiency. Tsai 12-7-07 (Louis Tsai, Part of the University of California, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, "Container Tracking with RFID and Port Security", WINMEC, http://www.winmec.ucla.edu...) Large-scale implementation of RFID into ports has not occurred yet. It is still in its early stages. Many trials and tests have been conducted at ports throughout the world. Benefits ranging from lower operating cost to higher efficiency of flow of goods have been experienced. RFID is able to provide reliable information at any time and be able to perform security tasks that would otherwise require many people and much time. An investment in RFID can, thus, serve two purposes: as a business accelerator in terms of supply chain efficiency, and as an enabler for improved security12. B. Technology solves Lukas, 4/8/2004 (Aaron, "Protection without Protectionism: Reconciling Trade and Homeland Security" Center for Trade Policy Studies CATO Trade Policy Analysis No 27.) The future of trade security will rely heavily on technology. There will never be enough human inspectors to look into every cargo container, truck, and rail car. Cargo cannot be guarded 24 hours a day. Technology promises to bridge the manpower gap by enabling the continual monitoring and tracking of freight. The use of electronics is already prevalent in commercial shipping. Cameras observe storage and loading areas at factories, ports, and warehouses. Digital identification cards restrict access to sensitive areas and store digital information about employees, including photographs, and increasingly, biometric data. Information about a cargo container"s contents is electronically transmitted to Customs officials before the container is even loaded onto a ship. Ironically, the single most visible element of the trading system"the cargo container" remains stubbornly low-tech and notoriously insecure. Indeed, instructions on how to break into a shipping container in under two minutes are readily available on the Internet.73 Most container seals currently in use are designed to detect intrusion, not stop it. Yet even in that limited role, many container seals are easily defeated.   Advantage 1: terrorism Al Qaida is targeting maritime transport Goslin, 2012 (Charles Goslin, Vice President of International Operations for Duos Technologies, Inc. senior advisor to the Regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) in the U.S. Duos Technology Library "Maritime and Port Security White Paper" http://www.duostechnologies.com... ) Global trade is dependent mainly on maritime transport. It is estimated that more than 46,000 vessels and 4,000 ports make up the world"s maritime transportation system. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimated in 2001 that 5.8 billion tons of goods were traded by sea in 2001; more than 80 percent of the world"s trade. This fact alone makes maritime networks an attractive target of terrorists. Although it has been some time since Osama bin Laden has been seen, it is ominous that in one of his last video appearances in October 2004 he confirmed that his agenda remained primarily economic. While terrorists have in the past targeted land or aviation assets, experts believe that this could soon change to include shipping, port, coastal facilities, and container/container yards are increasingly vulnerable because secondary emphasis has been placed on hardening these assets due to the urgent need to address threats to aviation facilities and transportation. Intelligence officials have identified cargo freighters they believe are controlled by Al Qaida, which could be used by the terrorist network or its affiliates to ferry operatives, explosive components, cash or commodities on the high seas. One example is a well-dressed middle-eastern man discovered by Italian police who had hidden himself in a cargo container destined for the U.S. He was equipped with a bed, toilet, water supply, satellite phone, laptop computer, cameras and maps. He also had security passes to various airports in the U.S. RFID"s take away the risk of terrorist accessing ports IBM 2006 (International Business Machines Corporation, written September 28th, 2006, http://www.ibm.com..., accessed September 10th, 2012, AL) In a volatile environment, such as an oil refinery or gas facility, disaster is just a split-second away. Whether natural or manmade, the first priority is always employee safety. An RFID system can offer instant identification and an accurate headcount of evacuated employees. And with the possibility of terrorist attack, tracking people in and around sensitive areas of the facility is critical to protecting people and assets alike. RFID transponders can help guide rescue teams to injured or trapped employees. Control systems can authorize or de-authorize individuals or vehicles for different areas of the plant, with real-time alerts for violation of rules. Tracking systems offer frame-by-frame instant replay of past events for post analysis. In addition to locating people, RFID allows instant identification of high-value equipment and strategic production materials C. Terrorists very likely and would most likely use container ships to smuggle weapons Konkel, 2005, (Todd Konkel- professor Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University) "Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe", International Policy Solutions, http://irps.ucsd.edu...) This nation faces a potentially greater threat, however, from a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) making its way into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that enter this country every day. In June 2004, the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation issued a memo reflecting this view: "Despite the importance of seaport security, perhaps no other mode of transportation is currently more vulnerable to future attacks than our Nation"s Marine Transportation System."1 Although a future attack involving a chemical or biological WMD could have tragic consequences, a nuclear weapon, which could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in an instant, presents the most concerning threat. In Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Harvard professor Graham Allison shares a brief but revealing excerpt from a private conversation that took place with former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge in February 2004. When asked what worried him most, Secretary Ridge replied with a single word: "nuclear."2 Later in his book, Allison states that a nuclear weapon used by terrorists in an attack on the United States "is far more likely to arrive in a cargo container than on the tip of a missile."3 The threat of a nuclear attack involving a seaborne container lies at the nexus of two critically important security issues: the availability of nuclear materials and the vulnerability of cargo containers. Although the U.S. government has taken a number of steps in the past few years to secure nuclear materials and improve the security of the 2 country"s ports, the threat of a nuclear weapon entering the United States undetected in a shipping container remains very real. Much additional work, including international standards for container security and expanded international cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, is necessary to prevent a catastrophe that could dwarf the tragedy of 9/11. And, A port attack collapses global free trade " our internal link outweighs " 3 week timeframe Flynn 03 (Stephen, Nat"l Sec Studies, "The Fragile state of container security," testimony before the senate, March 20 http://www.cfr.org...) A year later I joined with former senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart in preparing our report, "America: Still Unprepared"Still In Danger." We observed that "nineteen men wielding box-cutters forced the United States to do to itself what no adversary could ever accomplish: a successful blockade of the U.S. economy. If a surprise terrorist attack were to happen tomorrow involving the sea, rail, or truck transportation systems that carry millions of tons of trade to the United States each day, the response would likely be the same"a self-imposed global embargo." Based on that analysis, we identified as second of the six critical mandates that deserve the nation"s immediate attention: "Make trade security a global priority; the system for moving goods affordably and reliably around the world is ripe for exploitation and vulnerable to mass disruption by terrorists." This is why the topic of today"s hearing is so important. The stakes are enormous. U.S. prosperity"and much of its power"relies on its ready access to global markets. Both the scale and pace at which goods move between markets has exploded in recent years thanks in no small part to the invention and proliferation of the intermodal container. These ubiquitous boxes"most come in the 40"x8"x8" size"have transformed the transfer of cargo from a truck, train, and ship into the transportation equivalent of connecting Lego blocks. The result has been to increasingly diminish the role of distance for a supplier or a consumer as a constraint in the world marketplace. Ninety percent of the world"s freight now moves in a container. Companies like Wal-Mart and General Motors move up to 30 tons of merchandise or parts across the vast Pacific Ocean from Asia to the West Coast for about $1600. The transatlantic trip runs just over a $1000"which makes the postage stamp seem a bit overpriced. But the system that underpins the incredibly efficient, reliable, and affordable movement of global freight has one glaring shortcoming in the post-9-11 world"it was built without credible safeguards to prevent it from being exploited or targeted by terrorists and criminals. Prior to September 11, 2001, virtually anyone in the world could arrange with an international shipper or carrier to have an empty intermodal container delivered to their home or workplace. They then could load it with tons of material, declare in only the most general terms what the contents were, "seal" it with a 50-cent lead tag, and send it on its way to any city and town in the United States. The job of transportation providers was to move the box as expeditiously as possible. Exercising any care to ensure that the integrity of a container"s contents was not compromised may have been a commercial practice, but it was not a requirement. The responsibility for making sure that goods loaded in a box were legitimate and authorized was shouldered almost exclusively by the importing jurisdiction. But as the volume of containerized cargo grew exponentially, the number of agents assigned to police that cargo stayed flat or even declined among most trading nations. The rule of thumb in the inspection business is that it takes five agents three hours to conduct a thorough physical examination of a single full intermodal container. Last year nearly 20 million containers washed across America"s borders via a ship, train, and truck. Frontline agencies had only enough inspectors and equipment to examine between 1-2 percent of that cargo. Thus, for would-be terrorists, the global intermodal container system that is responsible for moving the overwhelming majority of the world"s freight satisfies the age-old criteria of opportunity and motive. "Opportunity" flows from (1) the almost complete absence of any security oversight in the loading and transporting of a box from its point of origin to its final destination, and (2) the fact that growing volume and velocity at which containers move around the planet create a daunting "needle-in-the-haystack" problem for inspectors. "Motive" is derived from the role that the container now plays in underpinning global supply chains and the likely response by the U.S. government to an attack involving a container. Based on statements by the key officials at U.S. Customs, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Transportation, should a container be used as a "poor man"s missile," the shipment of all containerized cargo into our ports and across our borders would be halted. As a consequence, a modest investment by a terrorist could yield billions of dollars in losses to the U.S. economy by shutting down"even temporarily"the system that moves "just-in-time" shipments of parts and goods. Given the current state of container security, it is hard to imagine how a post-event lock-down on container shipments could be either prevented or short-lived. One thing we should have learned from the 9-11 attacks involving passenger airliners, the follow-on anthrax attacks, and even last fall Washington sniper spree is that terrorist incidents pose a special challenge for public officials. In the case of most disasters, the reaction by the general public is almost always to assume the event is an isolated one. Even if the post-mortem provides evidence of a systemic vulnerability, it often takes a good deal of effort to mobilize a public policy response to redress it. But just the opposite happens in the event of a terrorist attack"especially one involving catastrophic consequences. When these attacks take place, the assumption by the general public is almost always to presume a general vulnerability unless there is proof to the contrary. Government officials have to confront head-on this loss of public confidence by marshalling evidence that they have a credible means to manage the risk highlighted by the terrorist incident. In the interim as recent events have shown, people will refuse to fly, open their mail, or even leave their homes. If a terrorist were to use a container as a weapon-delivery devise, the easiest choice would be high-explosives such as those used in the attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Some form of chemical weapon, perhaps even involving hazardous materials, is another likely scenario. A bio-weapon is a less attractive choice for a terrorist because of the challenge of dispersing the agent in a sufficiently concentrated form beyond the area where the explosive devise goes off. A "dirty bomb" is the more likely threat vs. a nuclear weapon, but all these scenarios are conceivable since the choice of a weapon would not be constrained by any security measures currently in place in our seaports or within the intermodal transportation industry. This is why a terrorist attack involving a cargo container could cause such profound economic disruption. An incident triggered by even a conventional weapon going off in a box could result in a substantial loss of life. In the immediate aftermath, the general public will want reassurance that one of the many other thousands of containers arriving on any given day will not pose a similar risk. The President of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other keys officials responsible for the security of the nation would have to stand before a traumatized and likely skeptical American people and outline the measures they have in place to prevent another such attack. In the absence of a convincing security framework to manage the risk of another incident, the public would likely insist that all containerized cargo be stopped until adequate safeguards are in place. Even with the most focused effort, constructing that framework from scratch could take months"even years. Yet, within three weeks, the entire worldwide intermodal transportation industry would effectively be brought to its knees"as would much of the freight movements that make up international trade. ____ Economic collapse leads to Global nuclear war Bearden 2k (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc) ET Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades. _____Nuclear war causes the earth to explode CHALKO 2003 (Dr. Tom J., MSc., Ph.D., Head of Geophysics Research, Scientific E Research P/L, "Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?" http://sci-e-research.com...) Consequences of using modern nuclear weapons can be far more serious than previously imagined. These consequences relate to the fact that most of the heat generated in the planetary interior is a result of nuclear decay. Over the last few decades, all superpowers have been developing so-called "neutron bombs". These bombs are designed to emit intensive neutron radiation while creating relatively little local mechanical damage. Military are very keen to use neutron bombs in combat, because lethal neutron radiation can peneterate even the largest and deepest bunkers. However, the military seem to ignore the fact that a neutron radiation is capable to reach significant depths in the planetary interior. In the process of passing through the planet and losing its intensity, a neutron beam stimulates nuclei of radioactive isotopes naturally present inside the planet to disintegrate. This disintegration in turn, generates more neutron and other radiation. The entire process causes increased nuclear heat generation in the planetary interior, far greater than the initial energy of the bomb. It typically takes many days or even weeks for this extra heat to conduct/convect to the surface of the planet and cause increased seismic/volcanic activity. Due to this variable delay, nuclear tests are not currently associated with seismic/volcanic activity, simply because it is believed that there is no theoretical basis for such an association. Perhaps you heard that after every major series of nuclear test there is always a period of increased seismic activity in some part of the world. This observable fact CANNOT be explained by direct energy of the explosion. The mechanism of neutron radiation accelerating decay of radioactive isotopes in the planetary interior, however, is a VERY PLAUSIBLE and realistic explanation. The process of accelerating volcanic activity is nuclear in essence. Accelerated decay of unstable radioactive isotopes already present in the planetary interior provides the necessary energy. The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet to explode.

negative: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.

negative: Medical Marijuana My opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder. My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution. What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. Per the New York Times: "In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it "shockingly easy" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as "primary caregivers" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program." It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched. REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications. Sources (not including those previously used): http://www.pendulum.org... http://www.nytimes.com...

negative: This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones. *I will be using the terms "cell-phone" and "mobile phone" interchangeably.* ArgumentsI. Internet AccessSince we are discussing modern mobile phones, I believe a clear advantage right from the start for children owning one is that they will have access to the Internet. If a child is working on a project for school, or merely having a discussion with someone and needs to find information fast, a cell-phone can provide the access to the vast amounts of information needed by the child at that moment. Thus the clear benefit is that cell-phones can help a child obtain answers to questions very quickly and easily, which can help with studies as well as other simple daily questions like daily weather or finding directions to go someplace new. II. Tracking DevicesMany modern cell-phones include GPS or Satellite location technology. When first turning on a majority of newer mobile phones, you are immediately prompted by the phone to allow location tracking. Furthermore, even if such technology isn't turned on, cell-phone towers can still help locate children due to the phone signals relaying off the nearest cell-phone tower. What this means is that cell-phones provide an additional level of security with children by being able to assist in locating the child should he/she ever get lost or abducted. The most important thing is that a parent or guardian can track where their child is to ensure that they are safe and where they are supposed to be at any moment should they install such an app on the phone, and can still benefit from their child having the cell-phone even if such an app isn't installed. III. Staying in TouchI believe a very clear advantage of children owning cell-phones is that it allows the child and parent to stay in touch. Say a child stays after school to work on a project or for a sports event. The child is able to notify the parent and actively keep the parent updated if he/she needs a ride home afterwards. This is important because things like pay-phones are becoming less and less common, or perhaps the school offices are closed by the time the after-school activity ends. With a child owning a cell-phone, there is no need to worry about such things, nor would such things even present an issue. This argument also ties into safety. Should an emergency situation arise, either on the parents end or the child's end, they will be able to actively communicate with one another as needed. The benefit of this is made clearly evident with the recent strings of school shootings that have occurred in America the past couple of years. For instance, the Washington State School shooting that occurred on Oct. 24th, 2014. A dailymail article showcases the benefits of allowing children to own cell-phones during that situation. An excerpt from the article: A crying mother called to report a text from her daughter, but when the operator tried to comfort her by saying police were on the way, it didn't help. 'My daughter is not following lock-down directions and she and other kids have run from their classroom,' the woman said. 'She's away from her classroom right now. What advice can I give her?' [1] What this shows us is that because the daughter had a cell-phone, the mother was able to communicate to her the advice given by the police operator on the other side after the daughter fled the classroom. Without a cell-phone, the mother certainly wouldn't have been able to communicate the advice necessary to best protect and ensure the well-being of her daughter. In fact, she might not had even known that her daughter was alive, which in itself is a degree of parental torment that no-one should have to suffer through. The fact that cell-phones allow children to remain in touch with parents, especially in horrendous scenarios such as the school shooting above, showcases yet another clear advantage of allowing children to own cell-phones. IV. ResponsibilityAnother benefit of allowing children to own cell-phones is that it allows the parents to teach the child about responsibility. They can set guidelines for the child such as texting them at a specific time, or rules about taking care of the phone and not breaking it. The child is responsible for the phone, and as such can learn the importance of caring for an object. This also ties into teaching a child discipline, since if the child abuses or neglects the phone they can have it taken away by the parent as punishment for failing to properly care for it. V. Older childrenFor older children who can already legally drive, a cell-phone can serve as a protective device once more should any kind of road-side emergency arise. For instance, if a child is driving and gets a flat tire, he/she can call either their parents or a local towing company for assistance. Should an accident occur, the child can contact the authorities and emergency services which could very well be the difference between life and death. Thus, it seems like with older children the advantages of owning a cell-phone becomes even more clear, as it serves, yet again, as a device that can help the child when unforeseen situations or emergencies arise. VI. MaturityI find it very unsettling to think that a child between the ages of 16-18, who can legally drive, shouldn't be allowed to use a device like a cell-phone. We'd literally be allowing a child to own and operate a heavy-machine for the purpose of travel, yet wouldn't allow them to own a handheld device that serves a purpose for communication? It just doesn't make sense. If a child is mature enough to legally own and operate a vehicle on highways, surely they have the maturity and capability to own and operate a hand-held device. I believe this is also the biggest flaw of proponents who argue in support of Con's side, there is clearly a vast difference of maturity between "children" when that term encompasses anyone from 5 - 18/19 years old. I do believe that there should be some restrictions for *very young* children, but to argue that a 16-19 year old shouldn't be allowed to own a phone is just absurd. For these reasons, I believe we should allow children to own and use mobile (cell) phones.RebuttalsLong-term health risksThe biggest flaw with Con's reliance on the WHO report of May 2011 is that they merely claim that it's "possibly carcinogenic". So, ultimately, there is no *actual* proof that they *are* carcinogenic. Furthermore, there is no legal or moral grounds to ban the usage of something that is "possibly carcinogenic" when there are multiple things that are proven to be carcinogenic while still being legally usable by children such as chemotherapy, engine exhausts from cars they drive, insecticides and cleaning products - thus there is no ground for us to ban something that is "possibly carcinogenic" when we allow them use of things which are definitely carcinogenic. Pro even concedes that: "It is true there is no total scientific proof about this..." but then relies on the precautionary principle and argues that until science can prove it's completely safe, we shouldn't allow children to use them. This is ridiculous, science hasn't yet to prove that the usage of automobiles are completely safe, and yet we allow children to use them. Unless Con can show that his incredibly high standards placed on science to prove something as completely safe is justifiable, this argument fails to negate the motion. Mobile Phones are too ExpensiveThis is a non-issue if the parents simply buy the phone for them. Con fails to realize that there are such things as "family plans" where the child is bundled into the same payment plan as their parents. He states "a few rich families might be able to afford this", but that is nothing more than an unproven assumption on his part. According to Pew Research, 80% of children aged 14-17 already have cell phones. Even 66% of 11-14 year olds have cell phones. [2] As the image above shows, even families with less than $30,000 in annual earnings has a majority that owns cell-phones. There is no way that banning phones would "reduce the financial strain on poorer families" when that strain isn't mandatory in the first place. No-one is forcing them to go buy a phone, thus it logically follows that a poorer family wouldn't be financially burdened in the first place if they aren't even forced to buy one. Distractions in SchoolsSchools already have measures in place to prevent such distractions from arising, such as rules to turn off the phone or to not have a phone on you. This argument can just as easily be applied to note-passing or windows in classrooms, as both of those also cause distractions. Ultimately, I believe the benefits of having access to a cell-phone in schools for safety purposes far outweigh the potential harms of being distracted in class. This argument also seems to contradict Con's earlier point about how certain nations actively utilize phones for educational purposes in the classrooms. Perhaps what it really comes down to is whether the school takes advantages of the learning oppounities vs. suppressing access to them. I believe the former far outweighs the latter. Open to AbuseI believe my arguments relating to responsibility and discipline counter this argument. There is potential abuse in all things, restricting access to just one thing that can *potentially* be abused removes the opportunity to teach children on the proper use of such things. We can abuse ice-cream as well, and cause serious health risks to ourselves, but if we are taught to eat in moderation, the abuse becomes non-existent. The same applies here, as with anything that can lead to abuse, we have the opportunity and ability to teach children how to responsibility avoid such things, and thus successfully use the cell-phone without abusing it in any way. Sources: [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://www.howtolearn.com...

negative: Medical Marijuana Per the Advanced English Dictionary: Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as (but not necessarily limited to) those mentioned by my opponent. The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make 'medical marijuana" contain only three percent THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of in taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. But wait: the (few) good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. If the harms can be lessened, why legalize a destructive alternative that is in all cases inferior and will be abused? Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Of course not, because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? The affirmative plan holds no greater utility, and accordingly, it is your duty to vote Con. Criteria: For Pro to win, he must prove that "medical marijuana" has some sort of benefit that is not matched by currently-approved THC-utilizing drugs, and must further prove that these said benefits outweigh the benefits that the FDA-approved drugs hold over marijuana. Sources: http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.usdoj.gov...

negative: Cell phone use while driving should stay legal activity Thank you. -- Rebuttals and Arguments -- • Paragraph 1 "I find that holding a conversation on a cell phone while driving is no more distracting or different than being engaged with a passenger or kids in the back seat, eating fast food or messing around with a music tape, CD or MP3 player." To me, this is like saying that we should not try to find a cure for AIDS, because there is still cancer, polio, lupus, and so forth. While a cell phone may not be more distracting than those things mentioned above, it does not mean that we should not make an exception toward one issue. In fact, it is important to keep strict rules for driving, since there are more than 6 million car accidents in the United States yearly.[1] With regard to music, a few studies have actually shown that music also plays an important role in distracting drivers.[2] While some studies are a few years old, or not very broad, it should be noted that they do indicate that music does play a role in distracting drivers. • Paragraph 2 "To legally prohibit cell phones being used while operating a vehicle infringes on my personal rights as a motorist. I know that it is distracting and therefore will not use it in my car. Do we have to place a law on all "unacceptable" behaviors." Your and my personal rights as drivers should be ones that are safe, even with many restrictions. Should we have the right to drive on a countryside that belongs to someone else? Technically, we are allowed to drive. However, due to limits, we are not allowed to drive on other people's property. Similarly, when something like usage of cell phones distract people too much, which will unintentionally damage other people's properties, lives, and so forth, then we need to find a solution. Currently, the best solution is to ban usage of cell phones, but since many people use them nowadays for important work, we can set exceptions. For example, usage of Bluetooth Headsets can be less distracting. Having it on the ear all the time, setting the "Auto Answer" option on the cell phone, and the results are positively effective. This is, in principle, not cell phone usage, since its features are used remotely. However, as I said above, exceptions should be made for people who need to perform many calls for important work. "People still drink and drive, smoke marijuana, etc... even though it's illegal." Yes, which is why in the year 2008, there was approximately a total of 11,773 deaths caused by drunk driving, which was 32% of the total amount of car accidents in the United States the same year.[3] In the United States, the maximum amount of legal alcohol concentration in blood is 0.08%, and a study has shown that usage of cell phones matches that in a similar way.[4] • Paragraph 3 In Round 2, a few arguments about technological advances and increased need to use cell phones. I have already addressed that above. My opponent asks, "How will officials know if the driver is texting or changing a song on an MP3 player?" One should understand that few things are perfect. We can indeed not always make sure that someone used an MP3 player and not a cell phone, but how about banning both? Yes, personal freedom, or freedom of a driver comes to question. However, in order to maintain security, it is important to have strict laws. The vast majority of people do not drive for the entire day, so they have the option to listen to music, make phone calls, and so on, as long as they are not driving. "Motorists know that using a cell phone while driving is distracting and therefore one should not do it." Should is not the same as must. Most people also know that driving while intoxicated is very dangerous, yet many people do it. I have provided some statistics above. In fact, as a source says, "driving while distracted is a factor in 25 percent of police reported crashes."[5] This probably covers food, music, and mostly cell phone usage. It is indeed a high number, and should be reduced. It can be reduced with stricter laws. This is taken from an article: "The use of cell phones, including dialing and texting, has long been a safety concern for drivers. But the Carnegie Mellon study, for the first time, used brain imaging to document that listening alone reduces by 37 percent the amount of brain activity associated with driving."[6] If listening alone reduces brain activity by as much as 37% while driving, what about listening and writing something down, or anything similar? • Paragraph 4 My opponent claims that state laws prohibiting cell phone usage while driving are effective in some cases, but not all. I agree that it may not be effective at all places and times, but it can be more effective overall. While the best ban would be a ban that covers the major distraction devices/things, such as cell phones and food, it is important to remember that many drops of water make an ocean. As far as I am concerned, we should ban things like food in the car (for the driver), but to make it easier for people to get used to all these laws with restrictions, we should move on step by step. The major distraction is apparently cell phone usage while driving, so we should start by banning that. Then we will have an ocean of blood reduced. Then a ban on eating while driving would be ideal, and so forth. Rome was not built in a day, and neither will a successful prohibition law. • Paragraph 5 "The GPS that sits on my dashboard and displays beautiful 3D renderings of my virtual surroundings isn't distracting?" It can be more distracting ending up in a deserted place, not knowing where you are. A GPS serves the purpose of showing the way to a specific destination. Is it distracting? Perhaps. But, I believe it is far less distracting than listening carefully to someone talking to you, especially if it is about an appointment that you have to remember and/or write down. A GPS can simply show a route that one can look at every minute, or even less, especially if driving at a highway, where the road is long. -- References -- [1]http://www.edgarsnyder.com... [2]http://www.newscientist.com... [3]http://www.edgarsnyder.com... [4]http://www.unews.utah.edu... [5]http://www.nationwide.com... [6]http://www.cmu.edu...

negative: Cell phone use while driving should stay legal activity I greet my opponent and welcome him to this site warmheartedly! I look forward to a debate of high quality and interesting facts. Unfortunately, I have come online and have only five minutes to write my arguments, which would not be long, and I want to save them for the next round. I was unable to write arguments before now because I needed to fix some hardware issues, and the only way I could write was through a game console, which would waste a lot of my time. I apologize for this, and hope that we can continue debating successfully in the next rounds.

negative: America should expand nuclear energy production. Rebuttal "My opponent never really attacks...still stands." Unlike France, the United States had once experienced the nuclear disaster in the past (Three Mile Island incident). Unlike France, Americans have abundant natural reserves. Pro"s contention is strong only if the two countries are alike, but Pro has yet included the relevant evidence to prove it so. "My opponent cites hurricane sandy and natural disasters...and no nuclear damage from Sandy is proof" Pro"s argument inevitably conveyed a false impression that the Fukushima disasters should be solely attributed to the design flaw, and since the United States would build new reactors with no pre-mentioned flaw, it is plausible to assume that the Fukushima disasters would not be repeated in the U.S. Pro, however, ignored the alternative explanation of the Fukushima disasters: human incapability of defending natural disasters. Japanese government well realized the design flaw and there was huge redundancy to cover the safety issue. But even so, the Japanese government still failed to secure the reactor during the Tsunami. [1] The reactors that failed in Japan are Mark 1 boiling water reactors designed by General Electric in the 1960s. Th Achilles heel in a boiling water reactor has to do with its cooling system. The main coolant in the nuclear reactor is water which is circulated through the electric pumps system. If the electric pumps lose power, the water inside the nuclear reactor would continue boil off. If enough water boils off, the nuclear core would get melted. In the worst case, the molten fuel, along with highly toxic substance, get released into the surrounding environment. [1] Because of this known vulnerability, there is huge redundancy around the pumps and their supply of electricity. In summary, there are three layers of extra-protections: Power can come from the power grid if the main reactor is shutdown. If that fails, there are additional backup diesel generators. If that fails as well, there is a backup batter system. Even with all this redundancy, the electric pump system still failed. During the incoming natural disasters, the nuclear power plants were immediately shut down. After the primary source of electricity was gone, rectors switched to power grid mode. However, the power grid was also disconnected because of the perennial earthquake. The secondary source of electricity was therefore gone. Then when the tsunami hit, the unexpected water levels from the tsunami causes the diesel generators to fail. The third defense was gone as well. Then it left the last layer of redundancy - batteries. But batteries were sized to last for only a few hours, and when the last defense was breached, water in the nuclear reactor continued boiling off. Hydrogen gas was quickly generated and accumulated, and it eventually exploded inside the reactor building. [1] Fukushima incident is not an atypical case. The nuclear power plant that near the NY city is identical to one in Fukushima Dai-ichi. Therefore, both nuclear reactors are subjected to the same safety concerns. Citied by Exelon"s statement, if the water level rose over 7 feet, there is a potential for the core to overheat. The water levels eventually reached a peak of 7.4 feet, but fortunately did not persist before it was down to 5.8 feet. If Sandy were stronger, it is not unreasonable to assume that another disaster would ensue. Given the continuation of global warming and climate change, human may face more Sandy type storms in the near future. [2] Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster had sent a resounding message to all Americans: a well designed nuclear reactor can still fail catastrophically. A good advise is: Do not play the game unless you afford to lose. "If several stations are commissioned at once...a sort of bulk discount." Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom does not hold in the case of nuclear reactors. The more nuclear reactors that government attempts to build, the more it costs. The increased costs are largely due to a fierce worldwide competition for the resources, commodities and manufacturing capacity needed in the design and construction of new power plants. There are no compelling reasons for the government to pursue such an unsustainable energy policy, especially when there are better alternatives available. [3] "My opponent says that the exuberant cost...what he stated." I urge Pro to present more evidence regarding the cost of nuclear reactors. It is a known fact that cost of nuclear reactors always exceed the estimated budgets, sometimes by a margin of 200% ~300%. There are many things that work great on paper, but eventually fail miserably in reality. [3] "He states that there is a very large safety issue with nuclear energy" Two points: First, the numbers are at best misleading, and at worst devious. Coal industry, for example, is labor intense industry. Due to the high number of people employed in coal industry and relatively low efficiency in coal process, it is not surprised that its mortality rate is much higher than the rest of industry. Instead of measuring the relative safety by deaths per trillion KWhr, the paper should use percentage of deaths calculated by number of deaths over total number of employees. [4][5] Second, the safety concerns should not be measured by number of death alone. As what had happened in Chemobyl nuclear disaster: the number of death resulted from the explosion was no more than 40 people, but the incident was rated the worst nuclear disaster in human history. During a radioactive fire that burn for 10 days, 190 tons of highly toxic materials were expelled into the atmosphere. At the time of the accident, about 7 million people lived in contaminated territories, including 3 million children. Today, millions of people continue to exposed to high doses of radiation that would result in tumors, genetic mutations, and sever damage to the immune system. [5][6] In terms of long-term health impact, thyroid cancer in children has increased in the contaminated area since the disaster. The World Health Organization predicts that over 50,000 children will develop the disease because of the incidents. Moreover, incidence of leukemia has increased 50% in children and adults. In addition to thyroid cancer and leukemia, UNICEF reports that between 1990 and 1994, nervous system disorders increased by 43%; cardiovascular diseases by 43%; bone and muscle disorders by 62%; and diabetes by 28%. Number of birth defects and genetic mutations were also reported increased dramatically follow the incidents. Besides the long term health concerns, after the Chernobyl accident, almost 400,000 were forced leave their home for their own safety. The long term health social concerns cannot be captured by by mortality rate alone. [5][6] Therefore it is irrational to measure the safety issue merely on the basis of mortality rate. In the case of nuclear safety, the aforementioned mortality rate is next to meaningless. "My opponent never says anything that...and the option is nuclear" Nuclear is not the only option anymore. There is a range of cost-effective and more secured clean energy available: Solar power, wind power, and geothermal power. Natural gas is probably the best choice in the future. I also ask Pro to address Waste issue. It is one of the biggest issue that people stress frequently. Thank you. [1]. http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2]. http://www.reuters.com... [3]. http://www.synapse-energy.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com... [5]. http://thyroid.about.com... [6]. http://www.chernobyl-international.org...

negative: Solar energy Solar power stores energy in environmentally hazardous batteries.

negative: legalise the use of cell phones in cars Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

negative: Smoking in public has to be banned As both of us agreed, children do suffer from a second-hand smoking. 6,8 children of the US population have already gotten asthma and yes, we do not know the causes of asthma in every particular case and yes, most of those children might not developed it by second-hand smoking. Yet asthma attack is not the lightest of asthma symptoms, it is a complete opposite. People, who are having asthma attack, feel difficulty of breathing, wheezing and coughing. A neck and chest muscles are tightened, person cannot talk, he is panicking and anxious. Daily, asthma attacks take lives of nine Americans. Moreover, in average 3285 deaths are caused by asthma per year. Yes, this illness is not the main topic right now; hence, second-hand smoking puts its part into making people"s future unclear: no one knows how asthmatics will handle being in public and having an asthma attack as a result of someone smoking near them, because every asthma attack requires immediate medical help. Your second argument was banning smoking in public places will infringe private property rights. I can slightly agree on that point. However, smoking in public approaches the line of infringing the World Health Organization Constitution"s point of having ""the highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being." Simply saying, very human being has rights on being healthy. Smoking in public places will damage human"s health. Therefore, it has to be banned. Special smoking places should be built in order to satisfy smokers" needs, because no one can say a word about someone"s decision to smoke as soon as person is old enough to do that. Yet smoking in public places, especially indoors, has to be forbidden. Taking a step back to the teen smoking, you understood one of my rhetorical questions in a reversed way. Shooting oneself does not mean that teenagers, who smoke, want to kill themselves. By following your logic, everyone, who smokes, simply wants to die, what is not true and both of us can agree on that. Comparing a bullet to a cigarette was the way to make statements "smoking kills" and "smoking leads to premature death" even more clear. "Teens are less influenced now than ever to smoke cigarettes." It might be a result of restricting smoking and tobacco consumption age in several states. A purchase of tobacco products is illegal for everyone, who is under-aged, who is not 18 years old yet. In some states, it is legal to smoke even though person is not 18 years old. Their sense of "responsibility" is taking over and most of the teenagers start to smoke by being provocatively influenced. Electronic cigarettes, as a suggestion to decrease air-pollutions caused by cigarettes, is a good solution. Nevertheless, there are things about e-cigarettes that are also dangerous for our environment that you could not think about at the first place. Going a bit in-depth, there are two types of electronic cigarettes: rechargeable and non-reusable e-cigarettes. Non-reusable cigarettes do not cause a lot of waste as they have been thrown away; some of their part might be reused as something else made of metal. Unfortunately, smokers, who decided to switch to e-cigarettes, would not choose non-reusable electrical cigarettes because it would be costly for them: in average, these e-cigarettes last only for 300 to 400 puffs, which is not a lot for a daily-smoker. Why is not the other type of e-cigarettes better than normal cigarettes? Rechargeable cigarettes contain a small batteries, that could not been thrown away, they are harmful for the environment as any other batteries. All batteries contain toxic chemicals that cause damage for the environment. Second con of rechargeable e-cigarettes is their electricity consumption. According to The World Bank (IBRD and IDA), 83,6 percent of American"s total electricity consumption is produced by burning fossil fuels. If all 40 million people, who smoke in the United States, did prefer to smoke electronic cigarettes over traditional cigarettes and their choice was be buying rechargeable cigarettes, they would be in need of electricity. As we know, burning fossil fuels causes bigger problems: greenhouse effect, acid rains, etc. Electronic cigarettes demand electricity to recharge; therefore, more pollutions in the atmosphere and our world is going to be contaminated. Of course, there are many advantages of e-cigarettes, as you mentioned: they help people cut down on smoking or quit doing it completely, they do not litter, if not thrown on the ground on purpose. However, it had to be mentioned, that there are cases of the electronic cigarettes" explosions. The e-cigarettes are devices, which sometimes refuse to work and requires care. Negligent use of the e-cigarettes might lead to their explosion and following injuries after it. For example, CNN"s report was dedicated to the e-cigarette explosion in costumer"s pocket on the local gas station on February 25th year 2016 in Owensboro, Kentucky. "Big fire, and he was burning," Jassie Singh, who was working the register at the time.(1 ) Man left with the third-degree burns all over his leg. Other incidents, mentioned in the same report, are spontaneous electronic cigarettes explosions, which leaded to man"s hospitalization and 3-years-old child"s first- and second-degree burns. These accidents are concrete examples of e-cigarettes being dangerous. The explosions may happen in public, where they will harm not only an owner of an e-cigarette, but also people around him/her. My conclusion is, problem of smoking has always been present and restricting the law by banning smoking in public places will be a small step to solving the problem in general. The United States is ranked as 51st country in a list of cigarettes consumption per adult per year, what is equal to 1,028 cigarettes. Hopefully, smoking ban in public would decrease this number and American will become a country of a dream for everyone. Sources: 1.http://edition.cnn.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://data.worldbank.org... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.who.int... http://www.aafa.org... http://www.webmd.com...

negative: I don't own a cell phone why do I need one to varify A lot of sites ask for your information to sell it. Check out spokeo.com. Pretty creepy.

negative: Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools They Can Be Used Educationally.

negative: cell phone use in school This was some challenging debate, and I had some serious competition.

negative: cell phone use in school some battles will never be won, it doesn't matter if schools want to ban cell phone use in school. Students will always find a way of bringing them to school. If you disagree with me try to go to any school that has banned cell phone use, you will find students in halls trying to text eachothers. Others are using them for social networking communications. So in mhy opinion I believe that cell phone use should be allowed in schools, though regulations should be set to control their usage. Teachers should have printed guide lines showing students when and how to use their cell phones in school. Academic administrators, should find a way of integrating cell phone use in the curriculum, because, it is very easy for a student to have a cell phone rather than having a computer.

negative: Should Cell phones be allowed in Schools. Telephone is a very useful thing for every student. Using mobiles Students can search for information in the Internet and also it"s very convenient cause mobiles are portable and students can find any information they want, they even can make lessons and home assignments by telephones. they can calculate using phones, they can write home works on their organizers. they also can chat. in my opinion telephones are very useful at study. if students will use phones in educational way their achievements s in study can improve. also parents will be calm for their children, they can call in order to know is everything good. also mates can chat with each other to help in study. Actually mobiles help studying. Moreover we are living in modern technical century we should know how to use gadgets. needles to say that there is function in phone to make it silence, so it's not going to disturb the lessons.

negative: should kids in jr high school have cell phones If jr high kids did not have cell phones it would be very not fun for the students. If they had them it would be useful for tools and other things like communication.

negative: Should we be worried about cell phone raiation Okay, I'm a little confused because your grammar is bad. I believe I understand, and what ask you to cite your sources.

negative: Cell phones in school Cell Phones Improve School Safety Supporters of cell phones in school contend that cell phones improve student safety by allowing students to contact authorities in the event of a school intrusion or medical emergency. Students with cell phones would also be able to contact their parents in an emergency to inform them that they are safe. In addition, schools can program emergency response systems to automatically call or text message students' cell phones with emergency information or instructions. This can reduce panic in an emergency and help schools keep students safe. Cell Phones Enhance Learning Cell phones, especially smart phones, can be used to enhance learning. Smart phones offer much of the functionality of a laptop, but are more portable and less expensive. For example, a class could download an interactive program and use it on their phones. Students doing lab work can take quick pictures with their cell phone rather than making a sketch. Students can also use their phones to record parts of a lecture, make a quick voice note or take a video of a science experiment. Stay Organized With Cell Phone Calendars Supporters of cell phones in schools also argue that students can also utilize the calendar function of the cell phone to stay organized. Rather than requiring a paper planner, students can simply input assignments and test dates into their phones. Convenient Communication With Cell Phones Cell phones offer a convenient way of communication, especially useful for students who have after-school activities. Rather than guessing what time practice will end or using a school phone, students can easily call or text their parents to let them know they need a ride or will be late. Parents and students also have an easy way to contact each other throughout the day if they need to send a message. Cell Phone Use in Schools Many schools struggle to develop policies for appropriate cell phone use. Cell phones have many beneficial uses, like helping students stay organized and keeping students safe, but they can also have negative impacts, including facilitating cheating on tests, texting during class and the spreading of rumors. As in business and social environments, there are always situations during which cell phone use is not appropriate. Parents considering whether to give their children cell phones should contact their child's school to learn the cell phone policies, including the punishments for inappropriate cell phone use during class. http://rebekahrichards.suite101.com... Pros of Cell Phones in School There are numerous positive outcomes that can emerge from permitting children and teens to bring their mobile phones into the classroom. Here are just a few that you should keep in mind the next time you enter a PTA meeting or other public debate. Instant Communication Although you hope that you will never have to do this, you sometimes need to get in contact with your school-aged child while they are in class. This could be because of a death in the family, an accident or other family emergency that may require his or her attention and/or attendance. By being able to call your child directly, you also help alleviate the workload off of the school's administrative team. This is particularly useful during recess and lunch hours when students aren't in classrooms anyways, and it may be more difficult to find your child. The problems with knowing where your children are after school could also be reduced if parents had the ability to call them (and vice versa). Text messages also make this easy (and discrete). Memory Aids Most cell phones have a camera these days, so children can use these to take pictures of things in class. This is great for science class, for example, where they may be exposed to certain creatures, plants and other things that they probably won't encounter anywhere else. This is much more effective that simply producing a quick sketch. Pictures are also useful for any sort of step-by-step process, so that they can later review the photos to better understand the procedure in metalwork, woodwork or other hands-on courses. Better still, give your child a camera phone with video capabilities! Voice Notes Sometimes, it takes too long to write down a note, so why not use the cell phone to record a quick voice note instead? Students may not always have immediate access to a notepad either, so using a cell phone to "jot down" important information is also useful. http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com... *** All in all these articles state that cell phones in school are good because they are there when there is an emergency. Cellphones are instant rather than going through the office or school phone to get ahold of a parent or 911. Cellphones are their to enhance many things such a memory and learning content. From a personal experience we had a bomb threat while i was in middle school, and children who had cellphones were able to call their parents or guardian to tell them they were safe and needed to be picked up from the school. Cellphones may be a distraction but there is always a time and place for them to be out and in use. *** Analise Bruno

negative: State has authority to regulate actions of drivers (by cell phone ban). , for example, through speed limits, rules against drink driving, etc. Dangerous driving meets the classic liberal test by endangering not just the individual but others, including drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and so society has a right to intervene to protect the innocent. A new law signals social unacceptability, and will send a message to drivers; the New York ban has already been highly effective.

negative: Ill-informed public opinion the main obstacle for nuclear energy. The majority of the public consider nuclear power plants to be unsafe. They really are very safe, but the public opinion in countries currently not using nuclear power is predominantly against nuclear energy. The public opinion really is the only factor stopping nuclear energy coming into place globally.

negative: Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives "Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - "In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving."