Datasets:

inpars

/

fewshot-examples

like 1

Follow

InPars 3

15

61bcb2ac-2019-04-18T18:10:47Z-00005-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Animal Testing My opponent made good arguments. My turn. :) Society: Animal Testing is just unscientific. You cannot replicate the exact results to humans. Apes and rats do share 99% of their DNA, but that means little to nothing it is still not 100%. Science needs to be 100% concrete to defined as science, therefore animal testing is unscientific. What does DNA similarity even mean? Bananas share 50% of their DNA with humans. Should we test on them? Of course not, that would lead to faulty results, just like how animal testing leads to faulty results. Humans share 100% of their DNA. Still, even with that, drugs react differently to everyone. DNA compatability does nothing to prove it's effectiveness. Animal testings does little to contribute society in the modern era. In 2004, a paper published in the British Medical Journal concluded that there was little actual scientific evidence that animal experimentation was essential to medical research. Experimenters perpetually attempt to justify the terrible suffering they inflict on animals by claiming there is a cure just around the corner, but decades of animal experiments on AIDS vaccines (more than 80 that passed animal tests have failed in people), strokes (150 treatments have worked in animals and failed in people) and other diseases have failed to deliver any cures for the millions of people who suffer from these conditions. That's because while humans and animals are alike in our ability to feel pain, fear, sadness, joy, and other emotions, we vary enormously in our physical reactions to toxins and diseases and in how our bodies metabolise drugs. Trying to apply the results of animal tests to humans is a shot in the dark. US Food and Drug Administration figures show that 92% of drugs which pass animal trials are later found to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials. Everytime humanity takes one step forward, animal testing takes us two steps back. Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Corneal transplants were delayed for 90 years and blood transfusions were delayed 200 years due to animal studies. The cure AIDS could've possibly already been found if it wasn't for animal testing My opponent says, the benefits of animal testing outweight the risks. I have posted a link that says 50 ways how animal testing has hurt humans. I would like my opponent to link a list that says 50 or more ways that animal testing benefited humans. 50 WAYS ANIMAL TESTING HARMS HUMANITY: http://www.healingcancernaturally.com... Inhumanity and animal cruelty: Animal testing harms animals. It's just plain wrong. Those animal suffer, feel pain and are lonely just like people do. Life in a cage or between four walls, doesn't sound like life it sounds like prison. These animals deserve to be with their family roaming free in the wild. They suffer fron stress and anxiety just like we do. The Animal Welfare Act is poorly regulated by the government. Alot of this cruelty and pain happens in private behind closed doors, which the government has no control over. Sure, there are many scientist who love animals and try to protect them. Though there are just as many or more, who beat and bash animals, who treat them like dummys and punching bag rather than a real life. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science. This is fact, not made up there is plenty evidence that shows this. Just look up "Animal Testing" any where on Youtube and you will see the cruelty these creatures face agaisnt their will. Researchers claim that they must be allowed unfettered access to animals for experiments in order to find cures for human diseases, yet they refuse to address the serious ethical problems of torturing sentient creatures for research purposes. On top of that, over-reliance on animal experimentation has historically hindered scientific advancement and endangered human safety because results from animal research typically cannot be applied to humans. In fact, scientists could save more human lives by using humane non-animal research and testing methods that are more accurate and efficient. Proof Animal Cruelty Exist in Laboratories: "USDA Charges UCSF for Animal Welfare Act Violations" In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) charged the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) with 89 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Instead of defending themselves in court and revealing their mistreatment of animals to public scrutiny, UCSF chose to pay a $92,500 fine, one of the largest ever levied against a research institution by the USDA. "Coulston Foundation Forced Out of Business" At one time, the Coulston Foundation had possession of an astonishing 650 chimpanzees almost half the population of chimpanzees used for research in the United States. Frederick Coulston was flush with millions in federal funding, as well as contracts with pharmaceutical, chemical and medical device companies, and was pursuing plans to become the sole source of chimpanzees for research in the country. They later closed, humiliated." These are just a few examples that cruelty exist no matter what regulations. Philosophy: Quoting one of the greatest peace maker in history. Animal life is equivalent in value to human life. Mahatma Gandhi - "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man." My opponent mentions, the analogy of lions and gazelles. Yet animal testing has nothing to do with the "predator/prey" complex. A lion needs to kill a gazelle to survive. A human doesn't need to hurt a rodent, ape or dog/cat to survive. We survived thousands of year without animal testing. Animals don't exist to serve humans. In cosmetics, do we need more mascara? Did caveman use hairspray? Don't we have enough eyeliner? In medicine, it's not helping it's hurting us. Hurting an animal for experiments is like hurting a pet, which people would not do. People would never want their own pets tested; why other animals? People that have pets typically develop an affection and even love for their pets, and often believe that their pets return that love and affection. They generally believe that animals have feelings, express happiness, and feel pain and suffering at times. Most would never allow their own pets to be subjected to testing for most of the above reasons. Why then would they believe it acceptable to subject other animals to such testing; animals that have the same capacity for the above feelings? Cost: My opponent never gave a counter agument. All wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is wasteful since it does little to nothing to help society. Alternatives: Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research! Animal experiments can be replaced by at least 450 methods known at this time, according to the scientific community. Cloning of human skin has already been done. Why are still burning animals? Antibiodies (Request) http://m.phys.org... Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... http://www.vivisectioninfo.org... http://www.aboutmyplanet.com... Thank you. :)

9

4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00000-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

wearing a school uniform at school Finally, also it's my last time for say my opinion about this topic. In general, still i think students don't need to wear school uniform. Nobody can't say "Oh, you have to wear school uniform" or something else. It's their own liberty. So, i think students don't need to wear a school uniform at school.

20

f0de1dc3-2019-04-18T19:57:58Z-00003-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

It Should Not Be Considered Rude to Drink in the Morning This is going to be fun! Thanks ahead of time! :D While SperoAmicus' stance is interesting, it poses quite a few problems. First I will address Spero's (I hope you don't mind me using a shortened form of your name. If you do, I'll stop! :D) arguments, and then move onto some of my own. The first argument given is that it is "silly" for people to think that it is rude to drink in the morning/early afternoon. Beyond this, we are given no reason to believe why this is the case. This statement then becomes an unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no analysis, facts, or warrants given to help it along. The second argument given is two-fold. In it, Spero provides two reasons as to why drinking a beer in the morning is good. The first is, essentially, that it tastes good. The second is that the alcohol is good for loosening tensions. While each of these could be construed as a good thing by themselves, it is obvious that they are absolutely non-unique to morning drinking. As it stands, beer tastes nearly the same any time of day (unless, of course, it has been sitting outside of a fridge for a few hours). This, of course, means that Spero's first point doesn't really support his/her idea at all. Additionally, alcohol always loosens tensions. Much like the first reason, the second is not a unique reason that drinking in the morning is any better than drinking at night. The third argument is that drinking as strictly a night-time activity is bad. Spero's main contention here is that at night, irresponsible drinking takes place, causing a multitude of "social ills" to occur. The same problem found in the second argument reappear here. Spero assumes, once again, that this problem is something that is limited strictly to night-time drinking. Anyone who has either drank excessively in the morning or who knows someone who has knows very well that this is not the case. Beyond this, Spero assumes that individuals who drink at night have absolutely no ability to limit their drinking where people who drink in the day do. Spero never explains why this is the case (nor does he/she properly address this point). Instead, he/she seems to claim that the night-time drinking individuals are those who become heavy drinkers. Finally, Spero claims that drinking only at night ensures that people will believe that they have two different lives (one at night [presumably the drunk one] and one during the day [the sober one]). Once again, there is absolutely no reason given to believe that these roles can't be reversed OR that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing (this will be discussed in detail soon). Now, to move on to my arguments. First, and foremeost, it must be pointed out that Spero never gives us any reason to believe that drinking alcohol will be limited to the morning/early afternoon. This is, of course, one of the easiest ways into alcoholism. All of the negative repercussions of this disease are widely known (although if they need to be addressed, I will be more than willing to bring them up). Second, as mentioned above, Spero seems to be advocating that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing. Despite this, he/she never provides any reasons as to why this is the case. Let's, then, entertain the notion that having two different lives is, in fact, a good thing. There are at least two good reasons as to why this is the case (all of which stem from Spero's arguments). Before delving into the reasons, however, it must be recognized that Spero is advocating actions which make the INDIVIDUAL happy (i.e. the beer tastes good, it helps loosen tensions, etc). To this extent, it becomes obvious that having two different lives runs along this same vein. The first reason as to why having two different lives is a good thing is that it provides an excellent opportunity for the individual to flourish (both professionally and personally). Partying it up at night is an outstanding way to promote oneself on the social scene. Having another "life" during the daytime ensures that we are more than able to be successful at work. The second reason ahving two different lives is a good thing is that an individual gets two completely unique methods by which to explore life. Experience is one of the most important aspects of living; leading two different lives provides the perfect opportunity to see, act, and be more of the world, easily fulfilling one's need for experience. My final argument is that Spero provides no good reason to believe that drinking either at night or during the morning provides any sort of unique benefit to society. Sure, he/she contends that drinking at night causes more "social ills", but as explained above, drinking at ANY time causes these same problems to occur. At the end of this round, a few things become obvious: First->Spero has a hard (if not impossible) time substantiating any of his/her claims. There is no analysis or facts/figures that give us any reason to believe anything he/she says. Second->If Spero does provide some sort of analysis, it does not help to prove his/her point. He/she uses the most generic responses which are applicable to both night and day drinking. Finally->Spero fails to address the "social ills" that drinking all throughout the day would cause (including alcoholism). Thanks! :D

4

dc1d3e0b-2019-04-18T19:21:17Z-00001-000

Should corporal punishment be used in schools?

physical force is a justifiable method of punishing children Physical punishment also referred to as corporal punishment according to me is not at all a justifiable method of punishing children. I would like to give a few definitions to begin--- corporal punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child's behavior. In corporal punishment, an adult usually hits various parts of the child's body with a hand, or with canes, paddles, yardsticks, belts, or other objects expected to cause pain and fear. Spanking is a form of corporal punishment intended to modify behavior usually defined as a physically non-injurious hit administered with an open hand to the buttocks. (http://www.irm-systems.com...) It is never right to hit a child. Even the power of physical punishment to teach a child the difference between right and wrong is dubious; a young child may learn that the adult is displeased, but not why. Spanking will cause a state of extreme distress and confusion which makes it less likely they will analyze their behaviour with clarity. In older children disciplined at school, a physical punishment is likely to provoke resentment and further misbehaviour. Physical punishment can never solve any problems !!! All it does is to aggravate the situation. The actual physical damage inflicted via corporal punishment on children can be horrifying. Examples can be found of students needing treatment for broken arms, nerve and muscle damage, and cerebral haemorrhage. Spanking of the buttocks can cause damage to the sciatic nerve and therefore the leg to which it leads.The buttocks are a sexual zone; adults can derive pleasure from administering punishment to that zone, and can affect the psychosexual development of the children receiving it. Even the presence of another adult does not prevent the easy degeneration from punishment into child abuse. A notorious case from Arizona in 1995 saw school principal Michael Wetton, who had previous convictions for violence against children, convicted of abuse after forcing a 9 year-old boy and a 15-year old girl to strip naked and be paddled. In the girl's case, her mother was present, but "too frightened to resist".(http://www.idebate.org...) Research has demonstrated a link between physical punishment and several negative developmental outcomes for children: physical injury, increased aggression, antisocial behavior, poorer adult adjustment, and grater tolerance of violence. Research has also shown that physical punishment poses a risk to the safety and development of children. It is imperative for parents to gain an awareness of other approaches to discipline because physical punishment can easily cross the line into child abuse and result in death. Each year thousands of children continue to die as a result of physical abuse. Children have a right to be protected from physical abuse. Most parents want to discipline their children without the use of physical punishment. Parents' disciplinary methods serve as strong models to children that teach them how to deal with challenges presented by life from day to day. It is important for parents to model appropriate behavior and to establish expectations as well as limits. The dignity and rights of children must be respected. Parents must consistently use fair and logical consequences whenever children fail to follow rules(http://www.socialworkers.org...) Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims, may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, 1952 In 24 countries around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools(http://www.naturalchild.org...) . As it is even against the law therefore i consider physical punishment to a be a crime and therefore there can be no justification for it . In the eyes of the law physical punishment is same as murder and nothing can justify the 2 !!!! Moreover all the parents/ teachers who physically punish children are brutish beasts.They have no right to hit anyone . What if the same started happening with adults that if someone made a mistkae we hit that person.Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves. Also extensive research data is now available to support a direct correlation between corporal punishment in childhood and aggressive or violent behavior in the teenage and adult years. Virtually all of the most dangerous criminals were regularly threatened and punished in childhood. It is nature's plan that children learn attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of their parents' actions, for good or ill. Thus it is the responsibility of parents to set an example of empathy and wisdom.(http://www.naturalchild.org...). The United Nations too takje s the same same stand on the matter. Corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental human rights to respect for human dignity and physical integrity. Its legality in almost every state worldwide - in contrast to other forms of inter-personal violence - challenges the universal right to equal protection under the law. The aims of the Global Initiative already have the support of UNICEF, members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and key international human rights organisations and individuals. Click here for details of supporters of the Global Initiative. In previous centuries, special defences existed in legislation in many states to justify corporal punishment of wives, servants, slaves and apprentices. Violence to women remains far too prevalent, but in most states it is no longer defended in legislation. It is paradoxical and an affront to humanity that the smallest and most vulnerable of people should have less protection from assault than adults. Click here for PDF (550KB) of the Global Initiative Handbook: Hitting people is wrong and children are people too. During the first decade of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) its Treaty Body, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, has consistently stated that persisting legal and social acceptance of corporal punishment is incompatible with the Convention. The CRC requires states to protect children from "all forms of physical and mental violence" while in the care of parents and others (article 19).Other human rights Treaty Bodies - the Human Rights Committee, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in a recent General Comment) and the Committee Against Torture - have also condemned corporal punishment of children in various contexts, but not as yet comprehensively. The United Nations rules and guidelines on juvenile justice all support prohibition of corporal punishment. In 1999, a resolution of the Commission on Human Rights called on states "to take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent all forms of violence against children...". It requested all relevant human rights mechanisms, in particular special rapporteurs and working groups, within their mandates, "to pay attention to the special situations of violence against children". ((http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...). PS-the reason for my forfeiting the 2nd round was because i had to go out of station for district level debate competition !

29

60e43a68-2019-04-18T12:13:06Z-00001-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick yea tiny rick

44

9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00004-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday My opponent highlights the supposed plight of women but we should ask ourselves why we perceive that women suffer so much. The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whinge, whinge, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are. "A woman's work is never done" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them. The fact is, these days, housewives have it even easier than ever what with modern appliances such as vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, food processors, they hardly have to lift a finger around the house. Furthermore, with the wide availability of ready-prepared meals and affordable clothing housewives no longer have to cook or sew. So, instead of doing something useful they lounge about all day watching TV or go out and spend their husbands' hard-earned cash on clothes, shoes and make-up. It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don"t because the majority of women - 62% inAmerica- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days. Now, to address my opponent's specific points in turn. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?" This is positive discrimination gone mad. True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" "Vagina Day" sounds a bit clinical, don"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day? "When would Vagina Day be?" A week before Valentine"s Day is just about the worst possible day: think about all the time, effort and expense men will be expected to go to in order to appease their womenfolk on Vagina Day only to have to waste even more time and money buying chocolates and flowers a week later. "Why cancel work on that day?" People would always welcome a free day off work and, therefore, might vote for my opponent"s plan for that reason alone. My opponent might as well have proposed a "Cowboys and Indians Day" or "Hamburger Day" or "Raccoon Day" or "Atom Bomb Day" or "NASA Day" or "College Shooting Day" or "Soda Pop Day" or "Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day" or "Hollywood Day" or "Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day" or anything else all-American. "How is it celebrated?" Giant balloon vaginas? My opponent hasn't thought this through. The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon. And, while there have been some great women through the years but there have been some rotten ones too: let's remember Elizabeth Bathory, the Blood Countess, who tortured and killed hundreds of young girls so that she could bathe in the blood of virgins in order to keep her younger, or the 'Bitch of Buchenwald' who was the wife of Karl Koch, a Nazi concentration camp commandant, and who reveled in torture and obscenity, or the evil tyrant Margaret Thatcher who brought misery and despair to millions of decent, hard-working British people through her vile political campaigns against the working classes in the 1980"s and 90"s. These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims. Finally, fireworks would be wholly inappropriate: as a feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe. Thank you.

46

f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00005-000

Should net neutrality be restored?

The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. I find myself over the character limit, and must pick and choose my arguments (I WILL address all dropped arguments):Freedom of SpeechWith regards to the FCC not supporting freedom of speech:b) Opposition argues that "net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet" because the FCC isn't trying to regulate the internet itself, only the providers. This is patently false; we can look to historical examples of content-based regulation of TV and radio allowed by the Supreme Court, which stated that the FCC could restrain radio and TV broadcasters on a content-neutral basis [1]. However, the FCC was then allowed the discretion of deciding what was 'content-neutral.' Through this open interpretation, the FCC was able to fine or even revoke the licenses of radio and TV stations it felt were not 'fair and balanced,' or if the station aired profanity, hate speech or other offenses [2,3]. In regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services through current proposed net neutrality legislation, the FCC would be given oversight of every ISP in the nation. Opposition has not objected to the fact that passing said net neutrality legislation would give the FCC precedent for the authority to regulate the internet, which is what they want-an open door to becoming a governing authority over the internet.Further supporting the FCC's lack of dedication to freedom of speech is their history of desiring to implement 'fairness' in all broadcasting of any sort. A major aspect of this is the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, which required holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced, thus greatly curbing the freedom of speech of all those subject to its control [4]. While eliminated in 1987, it turns out that the FCC never lost the desire to institute this 'fairness' of coverage in the media. Last May the FCC proposed a "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs" with the desire of determining the methods by which reporters, editors and station owners decide which stories to run [5]. The FCC stated that the goal of this study was to create guidelines to 'aid media sources in what they could provide that is content-neutral and fair to the public.' FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn stated "The FCC has a duty to make sure that the industries it regulates serve the needs of the American public no matter where they live or what financial resources they have" [5]. All of this shows the interests of the FCC in regulating media and what they are able to provide and express (a clear regulation of freedom of speech), and net neutrality legislation will only further their ability to do so. In fact, the FCC is leaning on this legislation and pushing for its passage so heavily because their success in promoting 'fairness' and reinstituting the fairness doctrine relies so heavily on their ability to control ISPs. In fact, this wouldn't be the first time in recent years that this doctrine has been brought to the table; in 2007 numerous Congressional Democrats, with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer at their head, aggressively pursued the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine [6].Additionally, to enforce such 'fairness' as the FCC has expressed a desire to institute, the FCC would need to create guidelines to regulate search results, ensuring that an equal number of liberal and conservative views load on the same page, moving some down and some up to make the overall page 'neutral' or 'fair.' This clearly results in a violation of freedom of speech of a search engine's owners and those of the individual sites/articles, as their opinions and the manner in which they present them are being classified and reorganized in an arbitrary manner determined by the FCC.Further, the 5-member commission stated in their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that two viable sources of such FCC authority over ISPs are Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Title II of the Communications Act [7]. Title II pertains to how the FCC grants broadcast licenses; the terms of licenses, renewal processes, content restrictions, etc. The FCC having control over the licenses of all ISPs means their actions are inherently controlled by the FCC. Further, ISPs would also become subject to the FCC's Discrimination Clause [7], a part of Section 706 which states that "broadcasters must certify that they do not discriminate in the sale of advertising time" [7] or of content, meaning that the FCC retains the right to determine if the agency is unduly biased and, if so found, 'correct' it (by revoking licenses). Similarly, Title II states that common carriers (ISPs would fall under this in net neutrality laws) can't "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services," which the FCC expanded in 2011 to include partisan viewpoints [3,7,8].Through all of this, it becomes quite clear that the FCC IS NOT engaged in the protection of freedom of speech. In fact, this factual evidence shows a very existent desire on the part of the FCC to obtain greater control of the internet for the purposes of normalizing opinion availability and creating a questionable 'fairness' which clearly infringes on freedom of speech much more than the status quo. Thus, in clear contradiction to Opposition's assertion, the enforcement of net neutrality laws DOES in fact give the government via the FCC more power to control what is available to us on the internet, and that further the FCC clearly does seek to regulate the internet through the regulation of ISPs.With regard to Opposition's objections to the example of China, point by point:b) To defend a perceived difference between the US and China, Opposition states "In China, actual website content is blocked"; the FCC will have the capacity to do the very same by revoking licenses of ISPs/information providers, by applying a fairness doctrine to govern what is acceptable, and through the discrimination clause to eliminate voices not expressing all viewpoints. This is remarkably similar, though certainly not as extreme, as the censorship seen in China.c) Opposition cites a difference in socio-political situations as the reasoning for their incompatibility; however, this does not change the fact that it is inherently the desire of those officials in government to stay in power that results in such censorship and closed internet practices, which is just as existent in the US as it is in China.Net Neutrality and Competitionb) BitTorrent is a growing source of legitimate content sharing, but my point is that BitTorrent is also a major member of the pirated content market, meaning that relative to, say, SOPA, the site should be halted solely because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities.c) While it is not always the goal of ISPs to halt internet piracy, it is their business to supply internet to their clients, and it is certainly within their bounds to place restrictions on the services they provide. Certainly clients may not like it if they are blocked from a particular site, but this is simply one of the reasons that individuals switch who they buy from. The Opposition has yet to argue precisely why it is not within the rights of ISPs to control what content they supply to their users-because they do.Innovationa) The value of each of these is indeed intrinsic; however, I would prefer ISPs decide what is available rather than a commission of 5 people.b) To clarify:a. Various content on the internet are different-ex., playing PTP games online eats more bandwidth than simple google searches, thus making them greatly different relative to ISPsb. They ought to be treated differently-because one uses more bandwidth than the other, bandwidth being the 'currency' ISPs deal in when providing service to users, it is only natural that ISPs treat the two on different levels (or pricing, should they decide)c. In Other Words-because various content on the internet are not equal in the eyes of ISPs due to the bandwidth they use or their popularity, etc., it is illogical to force ISPs to treat them identicallyWith regard to the household analogy:a) My 'view' is against net neutrality. This resolution does not require me to specify how the ISPs should do this; my burden of proof is simply to argue for the rejection of net neutrality. Thus, Opposition's question is non-topical.b) ISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use. In the Comcast article, the stated goal of restricting access to BitTorrent was to manage the network and "keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers." ISPs haven't undertaken another solution due to the enormous cost of doing so. A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.Sources:[1] https://bulk.resource.org...[2] http://transition.fcc.gov...[4] http://uspolitics.about.com...[5] http://www.breitbart.com...[6] http://www.journalism.org...[7] http://www.fcc.gov...[8] http://www.dailydot.com...

22

402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000

Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.

40

abe4d945-2019-04-18T18:13:40Z-00005-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

The Death Penalty To answer Pro's question in round one, we are talking about the state system. Argument 1: Costs The death penalty often makes cases much more costly than similar non-death penalty cases. For example, a 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the costs for a single death penalty case was 70 percent more than a comparable non-death penalty case in the state; for general statistics, death penalty case costs (median costs $1.26 million) were counted through to execution, while non-death penalty costs were counted to the end of incarceration (median costs $740,000) [1]. At trial level cases in Washington state, death penalty cases generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty, which costs at most $70,000 for court personnel [2]. Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole; based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution; in Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years; the most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment [3]. I could continue quoting statistics, but I think my basic point has been made; more examples can be found at sources [3] and [4]. The death penalty should not be considered cost effective. Argument 2: Deterrence of crime The death penalty can be a terrifying punishment, and it would be rational to think it acts as a deterrence to certain criminal activity; this is generally not the case, and one can deduce this through rational thinking and a look into statistics. People with mental illnesses, people absolutely enraged, people panicking, and people under the influence of drugs, such as alcohol, are not likely to take the death penalty in mind when committing a crime that may warrant the death penalty. Almost one in four victims of violent crime report that the perpetrator had been drinking before committing the violent crime [5]. Between 31 percent and 36 percent of prisoners convicted of a violent crime against an intimate reported that they were drinking alcohol at the time of the offense; these figures rise to approximately 50 percent when reports from those who were consuming both alcohol and drugs at the time of the offense are considered [5]. Furthermore, research has shown nearly all death row inmates suffer from brain damage because of trauma or illness, while 5 to 10 percent of death row inmates suffer from serious mental illness [6]. The death penalty, if meant to deter certain extreme crimes, has a very difficult time doing so, since those who commit these extreme crimes are not likely to consider the death penalty when committing their crimes. Furthermore, murder rates in non-death penalty states are consistently lower than the murder rates in death penalty states, suggesting that the death penalty fails to deter murder [7]. This even applies to specific cases where a death penalty state and a non-death penalty state border each other. For example, Iowa, a non-death penalty state that borders Missouri, a death penalty state, has a lower murder rate than Missouri [8]. The source, link below, provides further examples. This means that the trend that death penalty states have a higher murder rate than non-death penalty states remains consistent, regardless of the general location of the states. Now, this does not mean that the death penalty does not deter any crimes. That said, I have already presented statistics of the costs because of the death penalty. My opponent would have to show that the death penalty deters enough crime to justify the amount of money spent on death penalty cases and trials each year, when this money could be used for other crime control measures that could be more effective. If he fails to do so, then the death penalty should not be considered an effective way for the states to use when trying to control or reduce crime. Argument 3: Innocence Out of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976, it is difficult to determine who was truly innocent. That said, humans are fallible; thus, it is possible for human beings to make a mistake in trials involving the death penalty, which means innocent people could be executed. Most courts generally do not entertain the possibility that they executed an innocent person, while defense attorneys focus their attention on clients' who can be saved. If a person is sentenced to a lifetime of prison, and if new evidence for their innocence is revealed while serving their time, then they could be released. With the death penalty, the innocent person cannot be brought back to life; similarly, people cannot be given back their time that was lost serving their sentence, but being dead is much worse. Since the rounds are not particularly structured and Pro shall have an opportunity each round to respond to my arguments, I retain the right to introduce new arguments later on in the debate. For the time being, however, I shall let Pro state his arguments in favor of the death penalty while responding to mine. Nonetheless, I have argued that the death penalty is not cost effective while also arguing that it is not an effective deterrent of crime. Furthermore, I have argued that the possibility of innocents dying in an imperfect system should make the death penalty unacceptable. My job was to argue against the legalization of the death penalty, and I have done so. [1] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [2] http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] http://www.nllea.org... [6] http://www.deathpenalty.org... [7] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

28

436cc21d-2019-04-18T13:44:16Z-00002-000

Should prostitution be legal?

No to legalizing prostitution Although legalising prostitution itself is perceived as a negative thing, it is very easy to see the positive side of this decision. First and fore-mostly, prostitution is going to exist no matter if it is legal or not. Making prostitution illegal does not stop people from taking this path, or going to a prostitute, similar to making drugs such as heroine illegal will not stop people from buying them, dealing them, or using them. Thus, all of your points will still stand no matter if prostitution is legal or not. Given this case, acknowledging and making prostitution legal at least give prostitutes basic rights to protect themselves from abuse, being under-paid, or being raped. If prostitution would forever remain illegal, it will not die down, and the prostitutes, often young and vulnerable, will have no rights protecting them from various harms on the streets. Although making prostitution legal will not terminate anything, it will still decrease the chances of ' finding themselves at a place, where they do not want to be. ' as they will be under the protection of the law. Making prostitution into a lawful job also means that laws could be implanted so that STDs and such diseases could be checked frequently, and an age limit put on. Thus making prostitution legal will be beneficial to the health and safety of both prostitutes and their customers. Of course, most of the people entering prostitution are young and should be getting an education instead of selling their own bodies. This is largely due to poverty, domestic abuse and human trafficking. This phenomena is not going to improve whether prostitution is legal or not. It is structured deep within society and unless there are ways for domestic abuse and human trafficking to stop, there will be forever children and teens entering the industry. This also brings me back to my previous point. If prostitution is to remain illegal, 'in the dark', and as a social taboo, the children and teenagers will find themselves in a situation in which they would never make enough money to get out of, and being constantly abused at the same time. If prostitution was legal however, their situation will improve drastically, as they will be under the protection of the law, perhaps even providing them with a minimum wage and various welfares. Lastly, forced prostitution and human trafficking aside, if someone is willing to exchange sex with money and enjoy the process of it, why should it be illegal? The pornography industry is perfectly legal, so why isn't the prostitution industry legal? In conclusion, it is undeniable that forced prostitution should not be supported, but it is also clear that if prostitution remain illegal, prostitution will not stop and the conditions will be relatively worse. On the other hand, if it was legalised, laws could be implanted to protect the prostitutes from harm and abuse and help them get on the right track, and it will also give people who enjoy this profession a lawful job. However please keep in mind that most problems with prostitution is not caused by 'prostitution' but factors like poverty and domestic abused, as well as human trafficking. Source: http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com...

50

8adb8eec-2019-04-18T18:36:02Z-00005-000

Should everyone get a universal basic income?

Income and Democratic ideals The full resolution is: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. I changed it in the title to deter debaters from finding it by googling the resolution and stealing my sources and arguments. Round 1 is for acceptance. The other 3 are for rebuttals.

45

d67f6b84-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00228-000

Should the penny stay in circulation?

The US has a duty to Iraqis to stay and minimize the damage it has caused "Why they should stay". Economist.com. Sep 13th 2007 - "For all General Petraeus's spin, Iraq is still a violent mess. That is why America should not leave yet[...]If the case for staying depended on extrapolating from the modest gains the general claims for his surge, it would be a weak one. The strong case is that if America leaves, things will get even worse. This can only be a guess, but it is more plausible than the alternative guess that America's going will nudge Iraq in the right direction. In the past two years, violence has tended to decline where American troops are present and to rise in the places they leave. There is no doubt that some Shia militias want to rid Baghdad of its Sunnis and that American troops are for now the only thing stopping them.

37

1ecb131d-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00002-000

Is cell phone radiation safe?

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

15

fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00205-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Animal rights promotes the true science of humans and animals as kin Animal testing and the subjugation of animals undermines a fundamental scientific reality; that humans and animals are kin. With humans and Chimpanzees sharing 99.4% of their genetic code, and humans and mice sharing 99% of their genetic code, it is important to recognize that humans are, on a scientific basis, the kin of animals. The testing of animals undermines this scientific understanding by subjugating animals. This is harmful to broader scientific progression in society.

31

c71893a8-2019-04-18T15:21:11Z-00002-000

Is obesity a disease?

The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits. 1. Let's have the facts.I'll start by clarifying a few facts and explaining why Mr. Eggleston's misrepresentation (or ignorance) of the facts is important.First off, his representation of the Court's ruling is not accurate. He claims that the Court's ruling establishes obesity as a disability and that the European taxpayer must now pick up the tab for them. This is completely false--in fact, the complete opposite of the Court's ruling.The question that was before the Court was whether (a) obesity gives rise to anti-discrimination protections; and (b) obesity could trigger the legal requirement of a workplace accommodation.[1] The Court determined that obesity does not give rise to broad anti-discrimination protections, but that it could in some circumstances trigger the legal requirement of a workplace accommodation.[2] If an individual's obesity causes a long-term physical, psychological, or mental impairment that hinders job performance, that may result in the requirement of an accommodation.[2] Notably, as in U.S. law, European law requires only accommodations that are reasonable in the circumstances, and the employee may still be terminated if the employee is not able to perform even with reasonable accommodations.[1]So, far from being a ruling that obesity is now grounds for the dole, the ruling stands for the proposition that, if reasonable accommodations can be made, the employee should continue to work. This is quite the opposite of how Mr. Eggleston has described the situation, and it should radically change the way he views the decision. The purpose of laws that prevent termination for a disability that can be accommodated is to keep people productive and off the dole, not to take people out of the work force.Second, Mr. Eggleston's representation of the situation in the United States is patently false, except for his proposition that we are "the land of the free and the home of the brave," which is spot-on. He warns the U.S. not to follow in Europe's footsteps, when, as usual, the U.S. has been far ahead of the curve, and has long since beat Europe to the realization that we are better off with working obese people than with unemployed obese people.[3] Our Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employment discrimination against persons who are found to have a disability due to obesity, as recognized by our courts and counsel.[4] When it comes to unemployed people, obesity can contribute to a determination that the individual is eligible for Social Security Disability benefits, and this has been true in the U.S. for quite some time.[5] Not that we in the U.S. have anything over the Europeans, whose welfare state has been encouraging all workers, both fit and obese, to seek the European dole. In other words, tying my first two points together, Europe has long been a beacon to the slothful, and with this new Court ruling Europe is now more in line with basic logic, which is that if you're going to be so kind to the lazy, you should likely make sure the employable are protected from needless termination and thus don't end up drawing a welfare check.Third, when it comes to costs, it is clear from Mr. Eggleston's exposition of his argument that he believes that the U.S. approach is quite ideal in terms of its expense, since he predicts doom should we deviate from it. Granted, he is completely unaware of the fact that the U.S. is leading this march; however, let's take him at his word that the U.S. approach has been economically superior, which, indeed, it has. Protecting the working rights of employable people is a good economic policy.In summation of this bit of factual clarification, I'll point out that protection of employment and the requirement of reasonable accommodations is, in fact, a benefit. And, it's clear that offering social security disability to some people with obesity has not managed to put the U.S. in competition with the European welfare state, so Mr. Eggleston's prophecies of doom are overwrought.[6] So, even if Mr. Eggleston tries to arbitrarily narrow the definition of "benefit" to eliminate the relevance of the Court opinion that he completely misunderstood or misrepresented (a narrowing to which I will not agree), that will not help him show the great danger in extending other benefits.2. Let's consider the morality.Mr. Eggleston's tirade reeks of moral disapprobation and a sense of his own moral superiority, so, I will consider the morality of benefits for the obese.First, I will dispose of his discussion of benefits for the truly disabled. It is irrelevant to me whether an obese person obtains handicapped parking, a place to sit on the train, or the like. I do not need it, and I do not begrudge him it. I do not understand the moral value of insisting that a person should suffer because he is obese, and if there is one, I encourage Mr. Eggleston to offer something other than harsh words. Second, as for his claim that the obese have done something to deserve their condition, while others have not, this is a false distinction. As pointed out by both the European Court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit (a very conservative circuit), persons with disabilities are eligible for accommodation without regard to their fault in their condition.[2,3] It is not true that obesity indicates higher culpability, because many other disabilities are caused by choices, risk, and misadventure.[2] Furthermore, obesity is influenced by a number of conditions outside of one's control, as discussed by one of our less-than-liberal news sources.[7] Third, obesity is, as discussed by scientists,[8] influenced by a number of factors, including genetics and one's work environment. Making such harsh moral judgments as Mr. Eggleston offers about individuals who may have different results from the same behavior because of genetics is highly suspect. But what is even more suspect is his moral ignorance of environment. For instance, many sufficiently aged adults have had the experience of the combination of age, stress, long or irregular work hours, and limited time for proper diet and exercise due to commitments, leading to decreased fitness. For Mr. Eggleston, he sees a "greedy" person sticking his "snout" into the larder. A reasonable person would instead see a hard worker who has acquired a condition in large portion (no pun intended) because of his devotion to his work and commitments. Certainly it is desirable for a person in such a situation to take measures to improve his health, as most of us do. However, implying that those who fail or who may have more serious conditions that dispose them towards failure in health is something we should associate with laziness and lower life forms is simply harsh words. We should, rather, assist such people.3. In conclusion.I have established a case for extending benefits to certain obese individuals. The benefit of accommodations keeps people gainfully employed when possible, which is desirable, and there are moral grounds to assist people who have failing health. The Court's decision, and U.S. policy, is correct and economically desirable.Sources:[1] http://curia.europa.eu...;[2] http://curia.europa.eu...[3] http://www.eeoc.gov... [4] http://www.gordonrees.com...; http://www.insidecounsel.com... [5] http://www.ssa.gov...[6] http://www.npr.org...[7] http://www.foxnews.com...[8] http://www.livescience.com...

36

8b9e8370-2019-04-18T17:22:47Z-00006-000

Is golf a sport?

Baseball is the hardest sport. Mr. Sarcastic will you explain a more about your debate topic. Are you saying baseball is the "baddest" sport? Or baseball is the best sport? I look forward to this debate.

44

9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00003-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday "The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whine, whine, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are"Well of course they whine, whining is the only way that women can get a guy to do ANYTHING anymore. "A woman's work is never done" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them."Women turn on those tv shows just so that it can serve as background noise while they do their things around the house when nobody else is home. You know how guys like to turn the tv on in the background while they masturbate to whatever they are looking up on their computers? Same thing except women do that to get stuff done while men do that just to masturbate. "It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don"t because the majority of women - 62% in America- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days."But then women invented anorexia and bulimia to start fighting back against those numbers, and so far its working! We just need to give them time and sooner or later, all women will be thin and sexy.... If they arent dead. "True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought."That only applies to mothers though, while all the single proud independent women who dont need no MAN in her life are left out in the dark when they shouldnt be. They deserve a day of appreciation too!""Vagina Day" sounds a bit clinical, don"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day?"They can go with 'map of tasmania day' in Australia if they want but Vagina just has a melody to it that 'lady garden' just doesn't have. Walk up to any teenage boy in America and ask him about his opinion of Vaginas, then do the same about Lady gardens and hairy clams, I guarantee that they will give different opinions and wont start drooling over themselves like they do at the sound of 'Vagina'"A week before Valentine"s Day is just about the worst possible day"Valentines Day always falls on a friday, Vagina day would be the thursday before Valentines day, meaning that Vagina day would always be the day before Valentines day, not a week before it! That would be suicide"My opponent might as well have proposed a "Cowboys and Indians Day" We call that Thanksgiving I think. "Hamburger Day" Every day is hamburger day in Americaor "Raccoon Day" hey are natures adorable bandits <333or "Atom Bomb Day" We combined blowing sh*t up day with the Fourth of Julyor "NASA Day" That would really only work in Floridaor "College Shooting Day" or "Soda Pop Day" or "Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day" or "Hollywood Day" Im sure they will work outor "Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day"Every day is wall streed greed and incompetence day in capitalist America! All of these holdiays already exist or should exist in one way or another, why not actually go through with making 'Vagina day' a holiday?"The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon."Believe me, men will work until the end of time to build a giant balloon vagina once they are given permission to do so. "These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims."A vagina is a vagina no matter which woman it is on my friend.... "A feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe."LOL, feminists arent even people though!

15

e92f1168-2019-04-18T16:07:43Z-00000-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Animal Cosmetics Testing using an eye from a rabbit is still using animals for cosmetic testing your argument says animal cosmetic testing not alive animal testing second humans are animals so using blood from them is still animal testing you should really be more clear on the rules

38

d267acf3-2019-04-18T11:47:51Z-00001-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana is the future of medicine. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance meaning it has the greatest potential for abuse with no medical value, according to the FDA. While the FDA doesn"t consider marijuana a medicine, 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use to help diagnose over 25 different conditions. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 24 out of the 50 states in the US and the number is currently growing. For example, in Colorado, a state where Medical Marijuana is legalized, 1 in every 30 people are Medical Marijuana patients meaning they have a Medical Marijuana card allowing them to purchase their medicine from dispensaries. These are just a few numbers to prove the increase of Medical Marijuana use in America. Almost thirty percent of people suffer from pain or pain related symptoms every day. Physicians that can prescribe medical marijuana have found that they have prescribed about 1,826 fewer doses of drugs, such as opioids. As this topic grows and affects American culture, we have to decide what the right choice will be to help cure our loved ones. Medical Marijuana is also a short-term cure for cancer and is used for patients with autism. The family"s that have to go through these problems would do and try anything to help the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Doctor"s and families rely on Medical Marijuana to help alleviate pain, so why does the FDA want to stop the sales and distribution of Medical Marijuana?

29

799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00000-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

unknown আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যা�াউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তি72;&9l495; আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে &#

35

c51b1af2-2019-04-18T12:20:30Z-00005-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Video games make you violent Video games don't make you violent, there are multiple studies that that says they don't make you violent, http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.independent.co.uk...

31

636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00000-000

Is obesity a disease?

Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!

11

9704d9fe-2019-04-18T12:03:10Z-00004-000

Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

The Star-Spangled Banner Should Not Be Played at United States Sporting Events I do not fully understand why my opponent continues to make the argument that sporting events are tedious and boring. He has connected this to the national anthem receiving a connotation of being boring. However, I did state that the people in attendance of these events are there because they want to be there. In this case, the national anthem has nothing to do with the game being boring. Also, The Star-Spangled Banner would not be viewed as difficult to access just because it may be hard to get to a particular sporing event. The national anthem can be played whenever one wants it to be played. If they want to hear it in their own home, a simple YouTube search brings up many videos of this song. So it is clearly not difficult to access. I agree with my opponent in that The Star-Spangled Banner should be played in a respectful manner, and that playing it otherwise would result in a disrespectful atmosphere. However, this does not mean that the national anthem should be removed from sporting events altogether. I would like to conclude this round with some history of the singing of the national anthem at sporting events. If we look back at September 11, 2001, we will find that our country was in mourning and despair after the attack on the WTC (of course, my opponent will know more about this day than I will, as I was a mere one year of age). During the reclaiming of everyday life, sports were one way that was done. As stated in an ESPN article, "Across MLB, teams surrounded the song with tributes to the victims and the country's public servants. In Los Angeles, police officer Rosalind Iams sang the song while members of the Dodgers and Padres helped firefighters and police officers unfurl a colossal stars and stripes that stretched almost entirely across the playing field. That same night in Pittsburgh, two members of the Air Force Reserve were called on to sing the anthem as spectators donned 'I Love New York' buttons. And in every ballpark for weeks afterward, tears were shed over what it took Francis Scott Key's lyrics to remind them of: 'Our flag was still there'" (6). The singing of the national anthem at sporting events may be disrespectful in some fashions, but his does not mean that they should be removed altogether. As shown from this article, the national anthem has help unite Americans in times of tragedy. America should continue to respect the anthem for what it stands for. I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say.

3

82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00002-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy Burden of Proof: The topic is "a free market devoid of ALL government intervention…" If I can show that not ALL government intervention is bad, then I win. If there is one form of government intervention is good, then not ALL government intervention is bad, and I would win. Patents: He says: Patent law causes inventors to waste time suing Not even close. Maybe in the 1700's, but today, it's the lawyers that do the suing, not the inventors, especially not the scientists working for a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company. He says: Watt's steam engine proves patents are bad I don't have access to the sources he's citing, but note: I focused on pharmaceuticals, not machines. The idiosyncrasies surrounding a single invention during the Industrial Revolution is hardly a test case for the entire IP system. He says: Pharmaceutical don't need patents The patent system in America is the primary reason why America has the largest amount of capital invested in its pharmaceutical industry [1]. "For developed countries, it has often been pointed out that suppressing pharmaceutical patents would entail long-term, dynamic losses in terms of new medicines…" [2] "[P]atents are a fundamental incentive to innovative activities in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology." [3] Insider Trading: He says: That's how you make money Contrary to what most people think, the stock market isn't about making money (and if you read my introductory argument, that's not what I care about either). The stock market is a mechanism for corporations to raise capital in order to continue or expand their business. So if insider trading hurts that ability, then it's bad for the economy. He says: Stock prices reflect the health of the company No – in fact, this is exactly my point. If the CEO knows that the company is insolvent, but is hiding it (like the Enron case and many others), they can manipulate the stock price while making large sums of money on the inside information. Eventually, the ruse will be detected; the stock price will plummet, but not before the CEO makes a huge amount of money. The resulting negative publicity will further erode confidence in the stock market. In a world where this is commonplace, there won't be enough confidence to operate a stock market, capital will become scarce, and that will be bad for the economy. Even if your argument is that trading on inside information helps reflect a more accurate stock price, this becomes useless when the individuals doing the trading have the ability to manipulate the stock price to their own advantage. He says: No effect of insider trading Think again: "Our markets are a success precisely because they enjoy the world's highest level of confidence. Investors put their capital to work- and put their fortunes at risk - because they trust that the marketplace is honest. They know that our securities laws require free, fair, and open transactions. An essential part of our regulation of the securities market is the vigorous enforcement of our laws against insider trading…" [4]. They later continue: "But one of the main reasons that capital is available in such quantities in the U.S. markets is basically that the investor trusts the U.S. markets to be fair. Fairness is a major issue. Even though it sounds simplistic, it is a critical factor and one that is absent, really to a surprising degree in many of the sophisticated foreign markets.... The common belief in Europe that certain investors have access to confidential information and regularly profit from that information may be the major reason why comparatively few Europeans actually own stock. [This may] partially explain why the U.S. markets are so active and why so much money is available for those companies that seek to enter U.S. markets." [4]. He says: Outsiders were going to buy and sell anyway This is non-responsive. I said that if insider trading is widespread, then people won't invest, and the economy will suffer. Even if they would buy and sell, they WON'T buy and sell if there is insider trading, and the economy goes down. Externalities I'll put the definition debate here. He says: Free market means respect for private property rights First, his warrant is ridiculous – he's a "market anarchist", so HE KNOWS… How about some definitions: "an economic market operating by free competition" – Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." – Collins English Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com...) "A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation." – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (http://stats.oecd.org...) Free markets are simply millions upon millions of individual decision-makers, engaged in peaceable, voluntary exchange pursuing what they see in their best interests. – Professor Walter Williams (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...) Please note that NONE of these definitions (or the dozens of others I saw) include anything about "respect for private property. Furthermore, he says that in order to have a free market, you have to "respect the property rights of others." But – WHO WILL ENFORCE THOSE RIGHTS? The government. He tries to get around this basic necessity by defining "free market" as respect for property rights. But I'm sure he will admit that human nature may, from time to time, lead someone to display a lack of effect for the rights of others. The result is that we either have (1) the externalities like I described, or (2) some form of government intervention (i.e. laws, or a system of civil lawsuits, or some other "authority"). The only other possibility is conflict, which he says at the bottom of his argument is bad for the economy. He says: Privatization of all lands prevents externalities He still hasn't answered the fundamental question: who enforces property rights? He also says that air pollution is "impermissible in a market" – but do we all have the "right" to clean air? Who enforces that right? How clean does our air need to be? These are all questions that cannot be answered by the "market", nor by a system of private property. The problem of the commons requires government intervention to solve. Additionally, he says privatizing all lands will help prevent externalities. But take forests, for example. If the price of lumber increases, what will the result be? More and more private companies will buy forests, chop down the trees, and sell the lumber. Because lumber is limited by the amount of time it takes to re-grow trees, the price of lumber could rise considerably. In a pure free market, if the price goes high enough, companies might chop down most or all of the forests. But, if we remember from our fifth grade environmental science class, if there are no trees, we can't scrub out carbon dioxide and generate fresh oxygen. This is an externality, but there is no way for the market to prevent it. Other Cases In Favor of Government Intervention He talks about war and corporate welfare. I'm not going to defend either of those – but it still doesn't matter. I'll agree that there are lots of forms of government intervention which are bad. However, that doesn't mean that they are ALL bad – which was my original point. Less government = good No government = bad [1] http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu... [2] http://emmanuelcombe.org... [3] http://innovation.org... [4] http://info.worldbank.org...

10

9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00005-000

Should any vaccines be required for children?

Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Thank you, Strike, for responding I would like to set a road map: First, I would like to refute my opponents points Second, I would like to bring up my own points I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly. [1]My opponent has consistently stated that "without vaccinations diseases will spread. " However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested. [2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly [3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. To top it off, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. I would like to bring some of my points into this debate. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. [4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. [5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. [6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. [8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points. [1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons. [2]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as "associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.

28

670240e1-2019-04-18T19:43:42Z-00003-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Abortion should be legal. Thank you for starting this debate libertarian. I agree you have some points but I will show you some facts. The rebuttals: +++ It is true that abortion has some harmful effects but the chance of these effects are extremely unlikely. The two most common effects are bleeding and psychological, but these two effects are common with every surgery. Wrong! Women who undergo abortion face a number of possible physical complications including hemorrhaging that requires a transfusion, perforation of the uterus, cardiac arrest, endotoxic shock, major unintended surgery, infection resulting in hospitalization, convulsions, undiagnosed ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, cervical laceration, uterine rupture and death. And look at this! The risk of breast cancer for women who have experienced an induced abortion is 50 percent higher than among other women. A woman's body naturally produces a rapid cell growth in the breast tissues during pregnancy. This growth shuts down after giving birth. Abortion, however, does not shut down this rapid cell growth, resulting in a significantly higher risk for breast cancer. +++ Abortion can be used for health benefits. Often, having the baby will kill the mother or the pregnancy can be detrimental to the mother's health. Isn't this fact a risk for every pregnancy? Are you now saying we shouldn't have children? Are you willing to let a person die when you know you can save the life in advance? I find this sentence VERY IRONIC! Why would you bring a new life into the world at the known expense of one who has a husband, mother, friends and is probably already a mother. Not EVERYONE who gets an abortion is a mother with families. A LOT of teens get pregnant and get an abortion. Would you let your mother die in order to have a smaller brother who you don't even know? No. It is immoral for the government or any entity to force a woman to die for the sake of an embryo that does not even have thoughts, feeling and certainly not loved ones. You seem to be ignoring the fact that she can give it up for adoption. And dying is a risk she'll take with or without an abortion. She will not necessarily die because she gives birth but the child WILL. +++ A teenage mother will ruin her life if she has a baby, It will be very difficult for her to keep her grades up and do well in life. Statistically, teenage mothers are not as successful. This is an overwhelming statistic. It is immoral to force a girl to ruin her life like this. Again you ignore the fact that she can give it up for adoption. My cousin had to go through this. She gave up the baby for adoption after she gave birth. The baby is doing fine. She checks up on it all the time. Plus this is why abortion should be illegal in the first place. Teens will think twice before getting pregnant. +++ I do not believe that prostitution is at an all time high. Prostitution was the social norm trough the 1920s. Please show some proof. I couldn't find enough evidence to support either of our arguments. I misread a different article. Sorry! However I do not see proof for your argument. +++ Prostitution is not a harmful crime. The legalization of prostitution would be more beneficial. What! How do you rationalize this? Prostitution often means cheating on your wife or girlfriend and it spreads diseases! +++ There is no relation between abortions and prostitution. Prostitutes will simply demand the use of condoms or use birth control. Your link is non-existent. No, my link is right here. www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/prostitutionfacts.html Basically, it's talking about statistics with prostitutes being raped. +++ A fetus does not have feelings until 26 weeks. It is impossible for a fetus to think until this time as well. It is not a person. The mother, however, is. This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA? This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference? Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature? At what point does it become human and by what criteria do you make this judgment? If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person. +++ This is ridiculous. If you are going to argue that it is a woman's consequence and choice for having sex to have a baby, then you must accept that it is a woman's consequence and choice to decide for herself if she wants to deal with a baby or death from having a baby or if she wants to deal with anxiety. Look at this link. http://www.abortionfacts.com...? It talks about suicide rates among teens. There is more about psychological and physical effects on that site. +++ This is not what is happening to the baby. The baby does not have thoughts or feelings. And think of the poor mother. Are you going to force her to have a baby that could have resulted from rape or could potentially kill her? Is that morality to you? Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense and his life need not be taken because of the act of another. If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong. +++ No. If you asked the EMBRYO it would not say, think or feel anything. The mother would probably say, if asked, that she wants a future, however. My argument above would suffice for this one. And yet again you fail to ignore the fact that she can give it up for adoption. +++ Well, I'm not using the sexist argument. Although it is legitimate. Women are not child bearing receptacles. They are human beings with rights. Did I say they weren't? "Men aren't solely deciding the GOVERNMENT is. Last time I checked the government consisted of both men AND women. And yes there are woman who do not agree with abortion!" You fail to pose an argument against this. 1.The government does not, and should not have the right to control a woman's body. The founding fathers included 22 ways the government should be restricted. They used the word "not" in context of the government 22 times. They do not want the government controlling our bodies. Yet isn't the child a "body." The government would be controlling the child's body in this instance. 2."Back alley" abortions were very common in times when abortion was legal. These abortions included women sticking hangars into their bodies to kill their fetuses. This will continue if abortion is criminalized. These links should argue my point for this one. They give statistics on back alley abortions. www.priestsforlife.org/lte/lte27.html www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2688&pst=64853 www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn62.htm 3. A child that is unwanted will be neglected. GOD wants mothers to want their babies. GOD sticks these soon-to-be people in their bodies for nine months and cause much damage and stress. This causes mothers to love their babies so much more. He also makes them half of us. If you do not love your baby, God does not want you to have it. Ah, using my Christian faith against me I see. Yes it is true God wants mothers to take care of their babies. However this violates God's rule of freewill. A mother cannot be forced to love her child. Some mothers just aren't fit to take care of children so they give them up for adoption. And again most children in America aren't unwanted. There's established adoption clinics for the purpose of unwanted pregnancies alone and the parents gladly receive them with open arms. Please look at the comment section below!

2

65f00ce8-2019-04-18T14:57:59Z-00001-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Guns at the Altanta Airport - House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014 What can be done? There a few options that should be looked at to airport safety in regards to firearms at the airport. One option is for lawmakers to enforce this Bill as it relates to their own workplace. No weapon is allowed in the capitol building, therefore, no weapon should be allowed at the airport. According to Flagpole.com, "When he signed House Bill 60 into law, Deal remarked, "The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should be at the forefront of our minds." That"s an interesting comment, considering that the governor and the legislators who passed the gun law work in a capitol building where visitors are absolutely prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. There are metal detectors at every entrance, and the capitol building is constantly patrolled by state troopers and police" (Crawford, 2014). Another option is to allow the airport to decide if it wants certain areas restricted other than those high secured areas. The airport should have a choice just like churches and other public establishments. These places are given the decision to legally stop someone from bringing a gun on their property. "Bars, churches, government buildings, and schools are now the only Georgia establishments that can legally stop someone with a Georgia Weapons Carry Permit from bringing a gun into their facilities. But, the decision is optional" (Marie, 2014). Unfortunately, gun violence has occurred in publics places, which is very unsettling for everyone. The Second Amendment gives the citizens of the United States the right to protect our families, and property. It is definitely a good thing to carry, own and use a firearm if needed. The airport is a place that is stressful; it may not be the best place for people with guns. References Crawford, T. (30 April 2014). The unintended consequences of georgia's 'guns everywhere' law. Retrieved from http://flagpole.com... Marie, B. (2 July 2014). Churches can still ban weapons after Georgia's open carry gun law goes into effect this week. Retrieved from http://www.christiantoday.com...

16

5ed3b21a-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00001-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

Drugs Should Stay Illegal You haven't reputed M'kay. Drugs are bad M'kay. Explain why they aren't M'kay.

2

a33194f5-2019-04-18T18:29:39Z-00004-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Marijuana should become legalised Sorry for the wait, and here are my arguments. A) Marijuana affects one of your most important organs—the brain. Studies have shown that this drug affects the blood flow to the brain, which may explain why cannabis users have trouble with memory or thinking [1] [2]. Researches studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers. "The marijuana users volunteered to participate in an inpatient program and abstained from marijuana use for a month." "Blood flow in the brain was analyzed at the beginning of the study and at the end of the month for the marijuana users. Researchers found blood flow was significantly higher in marijuana users than in nonusers, both at the beginning and at the end of the study." Thus, it is evident from the study that marijuana not only negatively affects your brain; these negative effects linger within your brain even after a month (this is not that all surprising, considering cannabis has nearly 400 chemicals inside it). In other words, even after you have stopped using marijuana, your blood flow is still altered, which can lead to trouble thinking or remembering things. Furthermore, this study also revealed that cannabis causes high levels of pulsatility index (PI). "The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes," says researcher Ronald Herning. B) Marijuana also causes several detrimental medical effects to one's health (both short-term and long-term). This includes slowed reaction time, distorted sense of time, anxiety, depression, and lower levels of sperm count and quality (in men). Other symptoms include weakening of the immune system, limiting the brain's capacity to retrieve and store information, damage to the brain's memory functions (including math and verbal skills), increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack, and loss of motivation and/or interest in everyday activities [3] [4]. These side affects in turn lead to things such as car accidents (if driving after having smoked marijuana), trouble learning, lowered grades, shoddy work, and possibly even a heart attack. In addition, cannabis is addictive, despite what pot smokers may tell you. I do not mean physically addictive, but rather psychologically addictive [3]. However, it is also possible that marijuana is physically addictive. Some symptoms of withdrawal from pot may include aggression, anxiety, and a depressed mood. C) Cannabis is even more dangerous when used by the young population, whose minds are still developing. Studies have shown that various risky behaviors such as gambling, drinking, fighting, steroid use, and smoking cigarettes were all associated with higher risk for marijuana [5]. Self-harm behaviors were also associated with marijuana use. By legalizing marijuana, the government would be exposing our young population (this includes students, children, etc.) even more than before to this drug. D) Now, marijuana alone is obviously detrimental to one's health (as shown above); however, it gets even worse when mixed with other drugs. For example, if I were to mix marijuana with cocaine and smoke it, then the effects on my health would be much worse than before. By legalizing this drug, the government would be allowing the people to mix marijuana with other drugs, causing the danger upon one's health to increase significantly. Pro's Case- Marijuana is dangerous My opponent: "So, quite simply, if Marijuana is less dangerous than other legalised products, then it should be legalised." This statement is not true. Simply because another drug that is legalized does not make it okay to legalize another less dangerous drug. Marijuana, as I have shown, is clearly detrimental to one's health (especially mixed with other drugs); thus, all the government would be doing is exposing the people to even more harmful drugs, and their justification would be that it is less harmful when compared to some of the most dangerous drugs on the planet (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, etc.). They should be more focused on getting rid of alcohol and tobacco instead of simply increasing the danger to society. It is never wise to fight fire with fire, or in this case, add fire to even more fire. Furthermore, my opponent's source [4] simply leads to a page stating, "Lead Poisoning Due to Adulterated Marijuana," which simply supports me as it shows the dangers of marijuana. It is because of this that I would like to ask where my opponent has gotten the following information he put in R2: "But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer." Moreover, while cannabis may not increase the risk of lung cancer, it may increase the risk of testicular cancer. "The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence." [6] Therefore, it is evident that cannabis may also cause testicular cancer, which is another health risk (out of many) that this drug causes. Is there any danger at all? My opponent: "The legalisation of pure marijuana is what I am advocating." Actually, my opponent is advocating the legislation of marijuana and not just pure marijuana, as was agreed upon in the first round. In addition, pure marijuana is still harmful (as I have previously shown). Afterward, my opponent posts more arguments in my favor. Please note that my opponent is advocating cannabis with lead in it, and that lead is extremely harmful to one's health as Pro has proved for me. Is this really something that you want to be smoking? Do you wish to smoke something that has detrimental effects that are (as Pro puts it), "life long and irreversible?" If it ain't broke, don't fix it Here my opponent attempts to show that legalizing marijuana we will increase our own economic situation; however, I can just as easily show examples where legalization did not work. For example, the Netherlands was having second thoughts on legalizing marijuana. [7] [8] "After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds." [7] "Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who "complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht's small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems." [7] As you can see, while Panama may have been successful in their legalization, the Netherlands certainly were not. This is most likely due to different variables that are changing throughout the country. In other words, the legalization of marijuana alone is not enough to help or hurt a country, because other variables could affect the outcome (after all, it took Panama five years to get positive results, and many different things can change in five years). Conclusion- From the evidence that I have provided, it is clear that marijuana is harmful to human health due to a plethora of detrimental side affects and is even more dangerous when mixed with drugs already legalized; thus, it should stay banned. [1] http://alcoholism.about.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.cesar.umd.edu... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.news-medical.net... [7] http://www.justthinktwice.com... [8] http://alcoholism.about.com....

30

6df2669e-2019-04-18T17:53:16Z-00003-000

Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Do you think liberal gun laws are promoting increasing crime rates in US US govt should come up with better and strict gun control laws./ Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws. For instance, some US states have created assault weapon bans that are similar to the expired federal assault weapons ban. State level laws vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. In New York, however, the statutory civil rights laws contain a provision virtually identical to the Second Amendment.[1][2] As well, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the protections of the Second Amendment apply against state governments and their political subdivisions (see: McDonald v. Chicago).[3] Firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in, and not exclusively their state of residence. Reciprocity between states exists in certain situations, such as with regard to concealed carry permits. These are recognized on a state-by-state basis. For example, Idaho recognizes an Oregon permit, but Oregon does not recognize an Idaho permit. Florida issues a license to carry both concealed weapons and firearms, but others license only the concealed carry of firearms. Some states do not recognize out-of-state permits to carry a firearm at all, so it is important to understand the laws of each state when traveling with a handgun.[4] In many cases, state firearms laws can be considerably less restrictive than federal firearms laws. This does not confer any de jure immunity against prosecution for violations of the federal laws. However, state and local police departments are not legally obligated to enforce federal gun law as per the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Printz v. United States.[5][6] Contents National sovereignty Most nations hold the power to protect themselves, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sanctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations. Enforcement National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States' International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program "to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities.[1] Worldwide politics and legislation There are many areas of debate into what kinds of firearms, if any, should be allowed to be privately owned, and how, where and when they may be used. Australia Main article: Gun politics in Australia Firearm laws in Australia are enforced at a Federal and State level. Gun ownership is accessible to the civilian population, and those persons must comply with 'genuine reasons' to obtain a 'Permit to Acquire' from their State government. 'Genuine Reasons' focus on either hunting and/or sport/target shooting (for Rifles), and do not include 'personal protection.'Handgun licences are also available, and applied for separately. In New South Wales (and similar in other States), firearm ownership is widely prohibited for convicted offenders or those with a history of mental illness. Gun licences must be renewed either annually or every 5 years, and expire automatically (if not renewed prior). Firearm controls have been in place following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Gun ownership in Australia is not a wide social issue, and major political parties are generally supportive of pro-control legislation (Although parties such as the New South Wales Shooters Party, which represent pro-deregulation, have a small number of seats in State Parliaments). The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States.[2] The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.[3] Brazil Main article: Gun politics in Brazil All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25[4] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[5] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million[5][6] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[4] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[5] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[4] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[7] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[8] Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere.[8] Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil.[8] Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."[8] In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Material focused on gun rights in opposition to the gun ban was translated from information from the National Rifle Association, much of which focused on US Constitutional discussions focused around the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.[7] Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.[4] Canada Main article: Gun politics in Canada The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws is to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Canadians have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. Licensing provisions of the Firearms Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage. Users must possess a licence, called a "possession and acquisition licence (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL. A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a "non-resident firearms declaration" confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada.[9] There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.[10] In Canada firearms fall into one of three categories: 1. Non-Restricted: Long guns with an overall length greater than 26 inches and, if semi-automatic, a barrel which is 18 1/2 inches or longer. These can be possessed with an ordinary PAL, and are the only class of firearms which can be used for hunting, due to the ATT (Authorization to Transport) requirement for Restricted and Prohibited weapons, as well as provincial regulations. This class includes most popular sporting rifles and shotguns. 2. Restricted: This includes handguns wit

42

c98c7791-2019-04-18T15:57:27Z-00003-000

Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Basketball is better than hockey Hey Chris,This is not a serious debate. It will be light hearted and jokes/minor insults are allowed. No conduct points should be taken away for these things.BoP is sharedAll 3 rounds for debateMay the best sport win.Limit 3 arguments per round + rebuttals.I'll start off with some arguments. 1) Basketball uses a ball.Ball sports are obviously better than non-ball sports, and a ball is a lot less dangerous than a puck. A common hockey injury2) Basketball takes less skill to playAnyone can pick up a ball and throw it into a hoop, hockey takes skill and skating around on the ice is hard enough by itself. Even kids can play. Fun for the whole family.3) Basketball is cheap to playAll you need is a ball and a hoop. Struggle basketball being played by kids. Minimal resources required.As we can see, hockey is clearly more expensive, harder to play, and more dangerous than basketball.

15

28fe4cd4-2019-04-18T16:49:35Z-00004-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

In order for any American to vote, they must first pass a test on each candidate. You missed the point. They need to pass a test ON EACH CANDIDATE. No, they should not be tested on intelligence. If you're stupid but can pass a test on what each candidate stands for, then you should be allowed to vote, because both stupid and smart people are allowed to have an opinion. The problem is that most people (or at least, many people) don't even know what they are voting for. If they can't pass a test on what each candidate stands for then why should they have a vote? What are they voting for? Nothing! All this does is falsely skew the votes.

35

1f64bf69-2019-04-18T14:54:36Z-00001-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Dogs>Cats CAT STDS BITCh http://wtvr.com... GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL GET ON MY LEVEL G

17

f74ed338-2019-04-18T14:26:53Z-00005-000

Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the United States By destroying you. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and hope to have a fun debate. To begin this debate, I wish to provide what this whole debate falls under; self-responsibility or personal responsibility. The definition, which is very similar in both these terms, is defined as "The state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable forsomething within one's power, control, or management"(1). Basically, being in charge of yourself, and the usage of Marijuana falls under this category. It is the individuals decision on smoking that weed, no one else. The reason why I bring this up is because of who is using the drug in the first place. The person who decided to use the drug, simple as that. Now my opponent will probably make the argument of the damage that Marijuana can do to the body, and I will disprove that idea. Stated under "Smoking Weed Doesn't Harm Lungs If It's A Joint A Day, Even After 20 Years" (2), it states that even after smoking marijuana for one whole week, its "long-term effects" didn't really impact anyone. Its a brain enhancing drug that messes with the brain for a short period of time, similar to a temporary dose of cold medicine. You take it, you feel drowzy but does not impact you for feeling drowzy for the rest of your life; its just temporary. But to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, there has been research about Marijuana causing harm to the body. Stated under the website "Health Line" (3), it states how Marijuana can damage the brain and lung system. Both sides present reasonable reasons, but lets think about it like this. If anyone is willing to cause potential harm to their body, why not make some money off of them? This leads to my next argument. My next argument is that with legalizing Marijuana, the economic benefits will be great. Stated under "How Legalizing Pot Could Save America's Economy" (4), it says: "Legalizing marijuana on a federal level would provide economic benefits for the United States in the billions, precisely at a time when the federal economy needs a major boost. It's not just the feds, however, who would benefit; legalization would provide top-down economic improvements in local communities, state coffers, and more. In addition to bringing in funds, it would save regional and state governments substantial sums in currently wasted law enforcement dollars". How is this bad, when it has the potential to help our economy? Why waste money on the War of Drugs, when in reality; people are always going to find a way to "sneak" Marijuana to the state or country? With Marijuana legalized, it will help our economy and I know this first hand. I live in the state of Colorado, and no I do not smoke Marijuana, and we have legalized marijuana. Because of my state doing this, we are actually gaiining a high revenue of profit from businesses; and the besty part is that the money is going towards schools and law enforcement. How is this bad, when it is actually giving our state huge benefits? For my final argument, I would like to address a statistic on current arrests happening in the United States. Stated under "Drug War Statistics" it addresses the amount of individuals who were arrested for pocessing Marijuana. The number was 1.5 million, which is high, and is 48 percent (6) of the prisoners in prison. Apparently, if you have a small dose of Marijuana that is illegal in the state; you get charged in prison for 5 years. How is this fair, when those who commited serious crimes (Murder, Rape, etc. ) are lower than Drug Violations; those with the usage of Marijuana? If we legalize marijuana, this will reduce the prison populations and accept prisoners who deserve to be in prison. Now I wait for my opponents rebuttal, although I already know how piteous it will be. Good luck! Sources: 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...... 2. . http://www.medicaldaily.com...... 3. . http://www.healthline.com...... 4. . http://theweek.com...... 5. . http://www.drugpolicy.org...... 6. . http://thinkprogress.org......

8

6702c0a2-2019-04-18T16:52:16Z-00002-000

Should abortion be legal?

Abortion should be legal I accept the challenge and will argue that abortion should not be legal. I will now state my points: 1. Women have sex knowing that there is a risk of getting pregnant. If they don't want to have a child, then they should not have sex. 2. If the fetus is beyond 23 weeks, it can feel pain.[1] 3. Abortions cause phycological damage.[1] I want to point out that some of your points are irrelevant. These include: "10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency." That statement is not necessarily true. It would be more likely to decrease teenage pregnancy. Those 3 points I stated earlier are only three of my many dozens of points. Be prepared for very long paragraphs of reasoning against abortion. [1]http://abortion.procon.org...

18

68240a5c-2019-04-18T12:13:04Z-00004-000

Should churches remain tax-exempt?

Churches Are Slaughtering America's Children for not believing in christmas, Churches Will Be Bombed Hello, its nice to meet you Even though churches do slaughter our children, churches can't be bombed because it would traumatize our kids to believe in the truth, and that hurts other people. justice is not real. You can say that they should,can, and will be bombed, but...... It would not justify the means of society

13

731c384a-2019-04-18T12:10:23Z-00002-000

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

god hates children "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror." - Richard Dawkins "Now I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion and organized religion. Absolutely convinced of it. And I think it, religion, should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right." - Christopher Hitchens Well yep, absolutely god does not exist! It is the mere belief in this 0 god that creates all the hate pain and suffering. The proof of that is right there in the dead beat bible. More people have died, more genocides have been created, more cultures have been uprooted, more wars have been fought, more blood has been spilled, more souls have been corrupted, more bodies have been stacked high on the battlefields alone, more atrocities have been committed, more false hope has been generated, etc etc etc and they all have been committed all in the supposed "good" name of this glorious god than for any other reason. The verses are as sick and as perverse and as demented and as warped as it gets. What "good" do these verses do? What do they teach us? They teach us how to utterly treat children with such dignity and respect - right? Hey christians, ever hear of "editing"? These verses and many more could have easily been edited out. But no. They are not. What the F--- are they doing in a supposedly "good" book? Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." Lamentations 4: 9-11 "They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. 10 The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. 11 The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof." Matthew 10:37 "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Judges 21:10 "And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children." 2 Samuel 12:11-14 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick! Deuteronomy 2:34 "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:"Numbers 31:17-18 "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."---- a different translation ----Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Leviticus 26:21-22 "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate." Ezekiel 9:5-7 "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city." 1 Samuel 15:3 "3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$." Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." Hosea 9:11-16 "As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Exodus 12:29-30 "And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died." Exodus 21:14 -17 "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Isaiah 13:15-18 "Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children." Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:" Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 10:21 "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Judges 11:30-40 "Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it." Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance "0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." 2 Kings 6:28-29 "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. 29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son." 2 Kings 2:23-24 "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.There's plenty more.

29

b8f591f2-2019-04-18T17:23:08Z-00004-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America You voted me down, not because I was a worse debater, but that you agreed with the other side. So I want to see your debate skills. You can go first.

23

c8f72601-2019-04-18T15:27:47Z-00004-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Assisted Suicide/ Euthenasia Assisted Suicide. Why? Don't Legalize Euthanasia! Euthanasia, a term that can be described as "mercy killing" or the ending of a person's life because they no longer have the desire to live. Euthanasia has been a worldwide controversial debate for many years. Two types of euthanasia may be discussed, active and passive. Active described as "killing" and passive as "allowing to die." Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death? If foreign countries allow, and cannot control their own "mercy killings," why wouldn't the United States follow in their footsteps? These questions and life are too often taken for granted. Euthanasia goes against our morals and duties as human beings. It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two types. Supporters of active euthanasia base their defense on "One, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person for his or her life to be mercifully ended in order to avoid future suffering and/or indignity. Two, the individual choice should be respected to the extent that it does not result in harm to others; since no one is harmed by terminally ill patients' undergoing active euthanasia...". The common rebuttal to this is, "One, Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong. Two, killing is incompatible with the professional responsibilities of the physician. And three, any systematic acceptance of active euthanasia would lead to detrimental social consequences (e.g., via a lessening of respect for human life)". Basically, a physician has a clear moral obligation to his/her patients, to cure and comfort. This "obligation" does not entail killing the patient. Lets talk about Bob, what about Bob. Bob contracted polio at the age of five; initially, he was paralyzed from the neck down. Doctors told his parents that he would never walk again. Due to impairment of respiration and other problems, they believed that he would not live to the age of twenty-one. He also might have been a perfect candidate for physician-assisted suicide. Were the doctors thinking "better dead than disabled?" That it would be better to kill your son now in return for 20 years of hospital bills just to have him die? It seems as if there was an attempt to put a price on a person's life. Assisted suicide is most commonly contemplated by the terminally ill. Terminally ill patients do suffer greatly, but is it the physical pain they suffer from? Many physicians seem to believe it is depression that leads these patients to desire suicide. "USA Today has reported that among older people suffering from terminal illnesses who attempt suicide, the number suffering from depression reaches almost 90%" (Why We Shouldn't Legalize Assisting Suicide). Dr. Jack Kevorkian believes that any person with a disabling disease who doesn't suffer from depression is "abnormal." What is hard for these people to understand who are pro-euthanasia is that depression is treatable and even curable. A person would suffer a lot less physically if they suffered less mentally. Some medical doctors also feel this way. I think depression factors in greatly with the terminally ill patients, some more than others do. Let's take AIDS patients for example. In time, they suffer greatly physically and mentally. Does this constitute their ability to have suicide granted upon request? No, if it were so, millions of people would die, and look how frivolous life would seem if it were legal to have your own life taken. Physician-assisted suicide in foreign countries has proved to be catastrophic. "In 1990, physicians in the Netherlands were involved in 11,800 deaths, or 9% of all deaths in the country. Of these, half were labeled "active involuntary euthanasia", that is, the patient was killed without his consent" (Ohio Right to Life). For example, "by the late 80's it had become routine to "euthanize" babies born with handicaps, like Downs syndrome and spina bifida. Three nurses in Amsterdam killed several comatose patients without any consent. They were convicted, not of homicide, but of failing to consult a physician" (Ohio Right to Life). All of this has occurred in a country where euthanasia is legal. How would it be possible for the United States to keep it under control? "If we can't even control the actions of one doctor (Jack Kevorkian) when physician-assisted suicide is illegal, how can we expect to regulate the actions of thousands of doctors where physician-assisted suicide is legal" (Christian Medical & Dental Society). The United States should learn from the mistakes of other nations and think twice about making physician assisted suicide legal. Life is taken for granted all too often, people always look for the shortcuts, the easy way out. Death should never be a persons last resort, there will always be an alternative. Humans cannot be compared to animals either. We can't be taken to a veterinarian to be put to sleep. It is immoral and dehumanizing. People rarely take into consideration how precious life is. Feelings of depression and guilt often overwhelm the sick. They only think of one way out. If euthanasia were to be legalized, the already declining morals and ethics of this country would be further compromised. Making it legal to kill is immoral, and goes against our duties in society.

27

a2eaad4e-2019-04-18T15:15:09Z-00002-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control Contention 1: What the studies show. For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.

21

b567d819-2019-04-18T12:55:25Z-00001-000

Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. I'm just going to give up at this point. I can't even understand most of what your stating let alone formulate a response. I've had other debates on this site that even after months of reviewing my opponent's argument I still couldn't make heads out of tails out of my opponent's arguments. Maybe, just maybe if I had a year to respond I could defeat you. Thanks for the debate.

2

e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00000-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Vaping is a dangerous hobby, And yes I don't care if they become addicted or not. Life is short, Make it count. Likewise, You're a good debater

8

7586b8bc-2019-04-18T16:04:45Z-00005-000

Should abortion be legal?

Abortion should be illegal Legal abortion is needed to protect women's health, is justifiable in certain circumstances, and it is a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus. A fetus cannot feel pain until the 26th week Legalizing abortion protects women's health I don't disagree that abortion, in most cases, is morally wrong. However when abortion is illegal it is dangerous to the health of the woman due to back-alley abortions. Whether abortion is legal or not women will abort the fetus if they choose to. This is the most important reason abortion needs to remain legal because making it illegal changes nothing except more desperate women will die from their abortions. The fetus will be terminated either way but illegal abortions are unsanitary and incredibly dangerous in most cases while legal abortions are generally safe. Rape, incest, or danger to the mother In certain cases abortion is the only option if delivering the child is dangerous to the mother. Other times, rape may be the reason the mother is unwilling to deliver the fetus. Nobody should be able to force a woman to carry the unwanted fetus and go through painful, sometimes dangerous, delivery. There are many reasons women need an abortion and it should only be used as a last resort, but sometimes it must be done. Women's rights Abortion is, in the majority of cases, morally wrong in my opinion seeing as birth control is so readily available and putting a child up for adoption is an option. I want to make it very clear I am totally against late term abortion! But the woman should be able to choose in the early stages of pregnancy if the woman sees no other option. Consciousness in the fetus Abortion should only be legal within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or the first trimester. 88% of abortions take place within this time frame. (I would prefer not to debate over the other 12% as I agree that it should be illegal) The first stages of consciousness begin to develop around 12-16 weeks with the development of thalamic afferents to the cortex but at this stage almost nothing from the thalamus can reach the cortex. The brain cannot sense pain until about 29 weeks but it can receive visual and auditory information at about 24 weeks. Suffering to the fetus cannot be a factor in early abortions because the fetus cannot feel pain. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org... http://www.nature.com... http://abortion.procon.org...

33

64748291-2019-04-18T18:18:03Z-00005-000

Should people become vegetarian?

It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons Hi, I will be arguing that it is unreasonable to be a vegetarian. This is a relaxed, half-joking debate. It should be fun. The arguments I am making are a tad fickle, and are not meant to be taken that seriously. I definatly won't be doing any research or using any sources for this debate. I am presenting one argument for people who are vegetarian for health reasons, and one argument who are vegetarian for moral reasons. I will argue for these two points and my opponent's job will just be to refute these arguments. I am starting my arguments now.4000 characters max, 72 hour response times, 3 roundsThe argument of the tofu turkey (moral reasons).Some people are vegetarians for moral reasons. They say that it is inhumane to eat animals. They identify with animals, are friends with animals, and do not want animals killed. Often, these vegetarians will eat tofu instead of meet. They often make a tofu dish designed to look and taste like an animal. For example, they make a tofu dish, that looks like a tofu turkey. Now, I am strictly against cannibalism. I identify with humans, am sad when I here of a human death, and am friends with many humans. However, I would NEVER dress a food dish up, to make it look and tast like a human. I would never make a tofu human. This, in my opinion is a sick twisted unapealing idea. Yet, vegetarions have no problem, eating immitation animals? It is unreasonable to dress a dish up, to make it look like the animals that you are morally against killingNote: I understand that my opponent could claim that not all vegetarian eat tofu turkey ect. Please, for the sake of fun, do not make this argument. Please, argue on behalf of the vegetarians that eat tofu turkey and try to justify their actions.The argument of cocain, lard and straight sugar from the bowl in moderation (Health Reasons)Some vegetarians do not believe that eating meat is unhealthy, so they completely eliminate meat from their diet. It seems strange, that of all the unhealthy foods, to completly eliminate, they pick meat. Vegetarians are allowed to eat sugar straight from the bowl, french fries and gravy, lard, poison, cocain, heroin, cooking oil, dougnuts, cake, pop and energy drinks. Compared to these foods meats are relativly healthy. It seems unreasonable to complelty ban some moderatly healthy foods, while allowing some extremely unhealthy foods. Its like having the death penalty for manslaughter, while only 20 years for murder. Vegetarians are allowed to eats cocain and lard in moderation, but can never have an ounce of meat? These rules are skewed and unreasonable.I wish my opponent luck and look forward to this debate. Again, I will argue these points, my opponent's job is to refute them. Let's Go!

34

ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00004-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is "Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society." However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that "I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression" as well as that "For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change." However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that "Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore." However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a "growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report." David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.

22

5765f69c-2019-04-19T12:45:23Z-00050-000

Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Solution is to take it from others South Africa is the only country where affirmative action is currently used to favour a majority which has complete political control. That the majority requires legislation to protect them against a 9% minority group is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures. Their only solution has been to use moral manipulation to take from others. In so doing the current government emulates the Nazis.

31

fe70ccac-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00001-000

Is obesity a disease?

NDEs and OBEs are Not Experiences, They are Hallucinations So Should Correctly Be NDHs and OBHs. My opponent again uses his round to delve into his religious views and spends one sentence discussing the topic at hand. "On Christianity, Morality, Illusion, Delusion, all which are relevant to NDHs and OBEs is that they are Illusions"These six items corrolate in the strangest of fashions- if at all. Morality, the act of being moral, is most definitely not an illusion. An illusion is, of course, as pointed out by my opponent, synonymous. Same can be said for delusion. Christianity, however, is not an illusion. An illusion is something wrongfully perceived by one's senses. It would impress me greatly if you could wrongfully perceive something like Christianity with your five senses.NDE and OBE are not illusions because they are not wrongfully perceived. They are seen, heard, felt by your senses and truly percevied. It is a ridiculous argument that one does not perceive NDE and OBE.

20

84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00003-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Again, thanks to Kleptin for responding. "My opponent's restriction on people who drive" One of my restrictions was on people who are *driving*, not on people who drive. I was basically saying don't drink and drive, because that may seriously injure, if not kill a person. This would be incredibly detrimental to one's health. "Another exception that my opponent lists are diabetics." This is one of my exceptions. Although you say that diabetes affects 8% of Americans (it is actually 7.8%), it only affects 2.8% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This number is a lot smaller than what you said and although it is large, it is not significant enough to be considered average. "And finally, a whopping 44% of Americans are taking at least one prescription medication, and 17% are taking at least three at once." About 3-4% of the World's population is abusing drugs 9http://www.prescription-drug-abuse.org...). Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse, and there is a chance it can kill you (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, anywhere from 50 to 75% of prescription medications taken in America are prescribed and used irresponsibly (http://books.google.com...). Abusing prescription drugs is like using recreational drugs, which can harm someone more than help them. "...heavily restricting massive amounts of people who for all intents and purposes make up the statistically average US citizen?" US has 306 million people out of the 6.77 billion in the world. In the year 2000, the US had just under 5% of the World's population (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://nationalatlas.gov...). Although these statistics may be correct, they are US, not Worldwide, statistics. "Asian Curse" You say that about 50% of the the Asian population has the "Asian Curse", but you do not take into account how many people with this condition still drink beer despite the fact. You are implying that everybody who has this condition cannot have a drop of alcohol. In fact, some people who suffer from this condition take ranitidine or famotidine an hour before drinking to counteract the effects of alcohol flush, AKA the "Asian Curse" (http://www.steadyhealth.com...). Some people even drink moderate amounts of alcohol to build up concentration levels of Alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme they were lacking in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Your case of alcohol flush is extreme, not everybody with this condition is as sensitive to alcohol as you are. There are still numerous amount of people who suffer from this condition and still drink moderately, they just can't drink copious amounts. My resolution states that moderate amounts of beer can be beneficial for a person. "Simply put, my opponent's assertion that this particular sensitivity means I am not average, is unjustified and a bit absurd. In fact, his entire argument around designating an "average" person is absurd." I was trying to avoid a semantic debate. You have even said that I said people who *drive* shouldn't drink beer when what I really was people who are *driving* shouldn't drink beer. "Even setting this aside, my opponent (despite what he as said previously) made no mention in this debate as to what he meant by "you". When people say "hey you!" in a conversation between the two of us, I assume he is referring to me. Thus, since this word "you" is used both in the resolution and my opponent's extended resolution, why would I believe otherwise?" Frankly, we can argue this point of "you" all we want, but it will be ultimately up to the voter to decide how they interpret the usage of the word "you" in this debate. Many chronic health conditions in humans are caused by cow's milk. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology says that this type of milk is also the most common food allergen. Cutting milk out of your diet can reduce obesity levels, arthritis up to 90% and even get rid of acne (http://www.collectivewizdom.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...)(http://www.milksucks.com...). Consuming cow's milk is linked to high levels of mucus in the body. This can lead to ear infections, difficulty breathing and runny noses, stomach problems and possibly even kidney problems. It is also believe that these high levels of mucus can line the intestine and harden, making absorption of nutrients difficult (http://www.milksucks.com...). Roughly 70% of African Americans, 53% of Mexican Americans, and 74% percent of Native Americans and 65-75% of South Americans are lactose intolerant. 90% of Asian Americans, 98% of Thais and Southeast Asians, 95% of Chinese, 88% of Inner Mongolians and 80% of Central Asians are lactose intolerant as well (http://www.pcrm.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Let us also not forget that China itself has 1/6 of the world's population, and I am not counting Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. It makes sense. We are the only species on Earth that drinks other animal's milk. As adults, we have decreased levels of lactose activity in our body because we no longer need milk, not even human's milk to maintain a healthy diet. How does it make sense that we need other species' milk, milk that was meant for that species' babies, to be healthy? Thank you for your time.

45

cff9b111-2019-04-18T12:03:17Z-00002-000

Should the penny stay in circulation?

Abortion should stay legal The second round is for opening statements. The third, fourth and fifth rounds are for rebuttals.

19

4366841b-2019-04-18T15:33:58Z-00000-000

Should gay marriage be legal?

Gay Marriage should be legalized. The argument in which you find "irrelevant" is besides the point.I provided it to compare states that have same-sex marriage legalized and sates that don't, to show the logical complications and why same-sex marriage should be leagized in the remainding states. You have not managed to provide a valid point into why same-sex marriage shouldn't be leaglized in the remainding states. Thus, I my argument stands. "My opponent's second argument is thus:"I don't think you finished this...Anyways, in my previous argument I provided the following: "Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise.The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?So you agree with me: A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable. Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.Am I right?Thank You.

46

877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00005-000

Should net neutrality be restored?

Net neutrality laws. The implication behind making the debate impossible to accept, asking you to comment if you're interested, was to exercise discrimination in choice of opponent. I think taking the debate without commenting is bad conduct and constitutes a forfeit (at least based on the standards on this site). That said, the debate isn't about net neutrality as principle. Net neutrality "is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." http://en.wikipedia.org... The debate is about net neutrality laws. The question is whether we should require net neutrality, or whether we should regulate anticompetitive business practices through other means (e.g. antitrust laws). The problem with requiring net neutrality -- with a net neutrality law -- is that it doesn't distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive practices. Entrepreneurs often experiment with new and different business models -- e.g. prioritizing network traffic -- to lower prices and improve customer experience. Lariat Wireless, for example, a small internet service provider ("ISP") in Wyoming, forbids its customers from operating servers, to reduce network congestion and improve the overall experience for their users. Brett Glass, the CEO, explains: "most Internet users would not know what a server was if it bit them, and they have no problem uploading content to a Web site such as YouTube for distribution. This means customers that do need to operate a server could obtain that capability by paying a bit more to cover the additional cost." Under a net neutrality law, however, Lariat Wireless would be forced to shift "everyone to the more expensive plan. We will therefore be less competitive, offer less value to consumers and especially less value to economically disadvantaged ones." [1] Moreover, current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers from anticompetitive practices. The net neutrality debate turns on the idea that there are bottlenecks on the Internet which allow network owners to exercise market power. For example, if a local telephone company has a monopoly in broadband access and it blocks broadband subscribers from using an Internet phone service offered by a rival company, that could harm both competition and consumers. But that's a classic antitrust issue. And under current antitrust laws, Section 2 of the Sherman Act, that's illegal if it harms consumers and competition. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell notes that "in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law." [2] There is simply no reason to prefer displacing the antitrust laws -- flexible, nuanced, fact-based enforcement -- with a rigid net neutrality regime. References: [1] http://judiciary.house.gov... [2] In re Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 FCC Rcd. 17,905 (2010)

12

3418c277-2019-04-18T12:40:05Z-00002-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Developing countries should publish birth control policy Your second argument argues that if there are fewer children, there will be more children going to school. This is simply not true. If there are more children, there will be a smaller proportion of children going to school, but there will be many more children in school than if there are fewer children. Basically, let's say you have 100 kids. They represent the children of the nation without birth control policies. Of the 100, let's say 65 go to school. That's 65%, and not a great number. But now let's only have 50 kids. They represent the children of the nation with birth control policies. Of the 50, let's say 40 go to school. That's 80%, and a pretty great number. But do you see the problem? Yes, the number is much better with fewer children, 25% larger. But the number of students attending school is much smaller, 25 students smaller. If there are more children, more will go to school. Also, the argument that women having more children is somehow A). Denying them of having a voice. and B). contributing to global warming is nonsense. Global warming is factories. Unless women are giving birth to cars and factories, they aren't going to save the world by not giving birth as much.

37

75d64ceb-2019-04-18T16:32:57Z-00008-000

Is cell phone radiation safe?

Mining is relatively safe. Mining: "Whacking resources with a piece of crescent shaped iron or steel."Mining can't possibly be that dangerous. I look forward to this riveting debate.

48

6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00002-000

Should the voting age be lowered?

Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Per rules this is my final focus. Con case If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win my opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. Let's see if he has done that. 1: "Uniformed Voters" Essentially con's contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent's own words. "High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. " My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 2: "Propaganda" This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 3: "Counter Plan" Con's alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such "metrics" have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities. Final thoughts on Con's Case My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con's case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically. My case I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established "of the people, by the people, for the people. " At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con's claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it. I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote. I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny. My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17.

11

87b43e8a-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00005-000

Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities Drug testing on students is not nessecary. Imagine if you wanted to apply for a sports team and had to pee in a cup to join. If you had to do this wouldn't you be mad? The Government would loose 2 billion dollars doing random drug tests! Even if the government did start drug testing, what would they accomplish. No Middle school students have been tested positive on a drug test for performance enhancing drugs. The few cases in which a student has been tested positive relate to use of marijuana, which does not enhance performance.

12

2218331a-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00001-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family A controlled birth rate you say? I think wars from time immemorial have been fought over the basic needs. How do you control birth for a certain period of time, by inserting pills in the food we eat?

5

96775ff7-2019-04-18T17:01:41Z-00000-000

Should social security be privatized?

Education should be Privatized Arguments extended. I would request the conduct point, but Con may continue the debate if he posts next round.

20

40eccde7-2019-04-18T15:21:23Z-00001-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Chocolate milk should be served in school!!! When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call "yucky" or "too plain". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!

23

d8891c6f-2019-04-18T14:17:11Z-00000-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Legal Euthanasia What would be necessary for you to switch sides in this argument? Would there ever be a situation in your opinion that made it ok to legally euthanize? Would there be a specific condition or disease that had specific symptoms that would make it ok for someone to commit suicide by chemical drugs? What if they didn"t have any family or friends and they were all alone having to deal with so much pain? Would there be any situation that would make it ok for physician assisted suicide?

13

6140b8cc-2019-04-18T19:04:55Z-00001-000

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

Increasing Funding for Micropower (Alternative Energy) Have I mentioned how annoying it is to have someone post a challenge, put me through the effort of writing a case, and then forfeiting? I guess I have. Pro never presented an affirmative case nor responded to my arguments. The resolution is negated.

44

481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00003-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Columbus did not discover America. According to Zinn's "Problems in U.S. History", one of the sailors working for him named Rodrigo de Triana spotted land first, but Columbus claimed he had so he could earn the reward of 10,000 maravedis. One could argue that since he was the one who lead the voyage, he should get the credit, but he was not the first voyage to spot the Americas. The Native Americans had been on the land for thousands of years before and even Leif Erickson had spotted the land before. Columbus only gets the credit for bringing America to other countries' attention, but even this is overshadowed by his mistreatment of the Native Americans.

8

6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00003-000

Should abortion be legal?

Abortion should be legal Wow, disappointing. If Pro wishes to forfeit the remaining rounds just write "x" in them to speed the timer up.

18

f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00004-000

Should churches remain tax-exempt?

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

17

bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00003-000

Should recreational marijuana be legal?

The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Racism & Poverty: Nothing for me to rebut here, any concerns Con raises here would be solved through legalization as well. Why Legalization Won't Work:Crime: Con begins by focussing on stats coming out of California. However, there is a large problem doing this. Marijuana for recreational use is not legal in California. In fact, California's marijuana laws are closer to Con's plan than mine. In California, marijuana (for recreational use) is often considered a "misdemeanor" and punishment is done via fines, not jail time. (1) This is much like (if not exactly like), "The United States...should eliminate its mandatory minimum sentencing reduce the crime of possession of Marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor." So for this reason, any arguments Con made based on statistics from California should be ignored. However, it still is worth rebutting the point with stats from areas where marijuana for recreational use is legal. Con starts off saying that legal marijuana would only drop 4.4% in price from the black market. First of all, that alone should end illegal drug use, since it's cheaper and safer, so no rational person would still try to buy illegal marijuana. Second, Con's source (http://www.rand.org...) never even states that there would be a 4.4% drop in the price of legal marijuana. Another problem with this assertion, is that marijuana on the black market doesn't have a typically agreed upon rate. It highly depends on the dealer, the situation, quality, etc. What we can be certain of though, is that with legalization in Colorado, price of marijuana has only been getting lower and lower, despite still growing as an industry, which would further kill any remaining black market. (2) Overall though, Con's main point is that crime will increase if marijuana is legal. However, the facts from Colorado and Washington dispute this. Both states have seen a drop in violent crime, since legalization (on top of the obvious decrease in marijuana related arrests). (3, 4) That is the complete opposite of Con's claim that legal marijuana will increase violent crime, which as mentioned above was dependent on stats from a state where marijuana isn't even legal for recreational use. Seeing as I have shown data from states where marijuana is legal to disprove Con's claims, which relied on data from a state where marijuana isn't legal for recreational use, I have successfully disproved Con's claims regarding crime. Schooling: Con essentially argues here that marijuana use will increase if marijuana is legal, specifically among younger people. First off, Washington hasn't seen an increase in marijuana usage among youth, since it has become legal. (5) One of the main reasons is that marijuana would still be illegal for those under 18 years of age. There are also some problems with the medical marijuana related study Con cited from the NBER. They (http://www.nber.org...) claim they got their information from the 2004-2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. However, if you actually look at that, it tells a different story (see the below graphs). (6) This data suggests very little difference in usage, over the time period. On top of that, another study regarding medical marijuana legalization and teen usage from experts from various universities, also shows little change in teen marijuana usage. (7) However, marijuana use has been for the most part increasing in the country since the War on Drugs among teens (as shown in my argument last round, Education is Superior to Bans), even though the opposite has been shown in alcohol and tobacco. Same argument here, it would be better to raise awareness about the dangers of marijuana and help those who abused it, than expect that simply banning it will be the best way to solve high usage. The money for that can even be found from taxes from marijuana sales (from my argument Taxation). Sources: 1- http://www.canorml.org... 2- http://time.com... 3- http://www.drugpolicy.org... 4- https://www.drugpolicy.org... 5- http://www.drugpolicy.org... 6- https://www.whitehouse.gov... 7- http://blogs.chicagotribune.com...

19

c27d9933-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00002-000

Should gay marriage be legal?

Should gay marriage be legal well your wrong because Jesus said it was supposed to be women and men not men and men

2

301e7ffc-2019-04-18T12:18:19Z-00001-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Vaccine are Safe and Effective Vaccines don't cause autism. https://www.autismspeaks.org... https://www.cdc.gov... http://www.sabin.org... http://www.publichealth.org... https://www.google.com... A doctor named Andrew Wakefield Was paid to lie and say they do: http://healthland.time.com... https://www.google.com... Vaccines are safe. While it's not(and shouldn't be) required to get the flu shot every year, it's highly recommended. Only early vaccination can cause asthma. http://www.ageofautism.com... While it's not recommended to get some vaccines, others are safe and effective.

31

e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00011-000

Is obesity a disease?

Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.

2

52ece351-2019-04-18T16:22:02Z-00004-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie According to the CDC, 72.1% of all new HIV infections among youths were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact:http://www.cdc.gov...(see second paragraph under "Results."And successfully arguing that there are safe ways to engage in male-to-male anal sex is not evidence this sex is safe -- no more than wearing a bullet-proof vest makes being shot at safe. Unprotected anal sex can kill you, 400,000 gay males are dead because they engaged in it, and about a million more are living with HIV because of it. If this isn't evidence male-to-male anal sex is morbidly unhealthy, I don't know what is.Honestly, sir, what do you think you accomplish by saying male-to-male anal sex is safe when it so clearly isn't?

6

7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00003-000

Is a college education worth it?

We regret the emphasis on college education Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.

5

b2629620-2019-04-18T18:08:01Z-00003-000

Should social security be privatized?

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

47

ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00004-000

Is homework beneficial?

This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... Although i admit that too much homework is bad and that homework doesn't mean student achievement. Homework does in fact help someone consolidate information. I support 1-2 hours of home work because I feel that it is beneficial to that extent. futile-pointless I will show why homework is not pointless first i will negate my opponents main argument: ""study for a plethora of tests and quizzes, play sports, get involved in the community, eat food with nutritional value, and get an adequate amount of sleep, all in one day?"" I am a student athlete, i am also an A student as well as being actively involved in my church and other clubs. Eating nutritional food has no correlation with doing homework. 6-7 hours of sleep is adequete and manageable with all the other things I do. To answer your question, I do a little trick called time management skills. During boring classes, i optimize efficiency by doing homework or studying to reduce time back at home. I take naps on bus rides to ensure that i am energized for the day ahead. I plan what i'm gonna do and what i have to prioritize. ""As a student, I don't get home from school until 4:30 or 5:00 and I am doing homework sometimes until 8:30 almost every night. It is very stressful when you have seven classes a day and homework in every single class; it becomes very overwhelming. On top of that, I have to get up every morning at 5:30 am just to catch my buss at 6:40. Many mornings are very hard for me because of lack of sleep from the night before staying up doing homework and studying for two or three tests the next day."" so you do homework until 8:30 and yet you can't find adequete ammounts of sleep. 8:30-5:30 is like 9 hours of sleep, that's plenty. You need to either A) know how to stress yourself out less by doing exercise or meditation or B) stop trying so hard in school and learn to be more efficient. You most likely taking classes you can't handle and that's why your overstressed. "" they banned homework, test scores might improve because then students would have more time to study and be prepared than if we have five different subjects to do on top of studying for a test the next day."" That may not be true, most kids when given free time, watch netflix or play Xbox. The really dedicated ones who would study if they had time most likely already do study since they prioritize. Also, kids can study in the summer if they really wanted to. ""one reason why homework should be banned is because homework is just too much." why don't we just assign less homework then and not ban it completely. ""Another reason why homework should be banned is because it is evil."" Lol, you have plenty of time to go to sleep. Homework is voluntary, the government doesn't force you to do it. You are obligated to do it for a better grade but you don't have to sacrifice everything if you truly don't want to. ""according to research some of the smartest country like Finland and Japan don"t have homework. We can be just as smart as or smarter than them without homework. This shows that homework have no academic achievements towards grades. This is why kids should not repeat not have homework."" This statement has no evidence to back it up. You cited Finland as an example of where there is no homework yet they're doing fine. This article to some extent agrees with you, but it also shows that they're are factors aside from that. In Finnishsocieties, teachers are looked as something good for the community. Finnish classroom sizes are also much smaller which allows for more individual learning time. In Finland, they're are no accelerated class so everyone learns at the same pace(which is bad for high achievers like me). We cannot become like Finland!! Abolishing homework does not lead to more academic success, that is from the basis of a logical fallacy. Correlation between no homework and high test scores does not mean causation. You know what is correlated with better test scores? Good teachers, which Finland has an America sadly lags behind in."More than two decades of research findings are unequivocal about the connection between teacher quality and student learning." http://www.smithsonianmag.com... http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... onto my main points Homework is far from pointless. It exercises the most important organ in your body, your brain. Without homework, we wouldn't mentally stimulate ourselves and we won't apply ourselves anywhere outside of school. Doing homework ensures that you know what the teacher is teaching and you know if you understand concepts enough to apply them to homework questions etc. The education system is here to prepare ourselves for the workforce and stressful scenarios. Oftentime, people who work have things or objectives to complete at home(businessmen) and homework teaches people how to prioritize outside of the workplace. Homework is voluntary. You won't get arrested for not doing homework. Homework is just work in itself, if you want to apply yourself and get a good grade, you should do it. If you can't handle all the stress and all the time management you have to do, then don't. It's simple really. Homework prepares you for the workload you will receive in universities. Universities oftentime require their students to write essays, lab reports, take home tests, and a whole lot of other stuff. If students weren't taught how to effectively do homework and essays at home outside of school, then these students may fail these courses. Our university system is the BEST in the world, you can't disagree with that. Our homework load prepares us for these awesome universities. 6 out of the top ten universities are in the US, 4 in the UK, and both do homework. Where is Finland on that chart? This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity Homework helps you spell. When you write an essay, you are crtiqued on your grammer or spelling errors. This helps you learn from your errors. You misspelled society in your title. ""This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity"" This shows how much homework you need to do and how educated you truly are.

3

428ce78b-2019-04-18T19:21:16Z-00002-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Gay marriage should not be allowed. My opponent has forfeited this round, and he has provided no evidence or reasons to ban gay marriage.

17

d2157663-2019-04-18T14:25:23Z-00000-000

Should recreational marijuana be legal?

It Happened To Me .'. It Can Happen To You KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIENDKIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND.KIM JONG UN IS my BEST FRIEND..KIIIIIIIIM JONG UN IS MY BEEEEEEST FRIEND.In other words, this is a troll debate. Please DO NOT vote on this debate.

39

148740e7-2019-04-18T16:49:23Z-00005-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

Minimum Wage Laws In The USA Should Be Abolished You're right, I'll be arguing for the abolishment of both federal & state minimum wage laws. Here is a summary of my arguments: 1. A law should be abolished if it either fails to accomplish its primary objectives, or works against its primary objectives. 2. The primary objectives of Minimum Wage laws are to reduce net poverty and net unemployment. 3. At best, Minimum Wage laws have no net effect on poverty or unemployment. At worst, they cause a net increase in poverty and unemployment. 4. Therefore, Minimum Wage laws should be abolished. To clarify, I need only prove that Minimum Wage laws do not cause a net reduction in poverty and employment to win. Let's begin! Minimum Wage Laws Don't Reduce Unemployment 10% raises in the Federal Minimum Wage generally correspond to a 4.5% increase in unemployment rates.3 The Congressional Joint Economic Committee published a paper based on 50 years of research on the Federal Minimum Wage. They summarised it this way: "The minimum wage reduces employment. "1 In states that have a minimum wage higher than the federal one, unemployment is 2% higher than in those states with a minimum wage equal to the Federal Minimum Wage.5 When employers are forced to pay wages higher than they can afford, they cut costs by laying off entry-level workers. Their positions are then either automated (replaced by machinery), or outsourced to a country without minimum wage laws. Minimum Wage Laws Don't Reduce Poverty The Employment Policies Insitute, a non-profit organization, also published a paper on this subject. After analyzing poverty rates and increases in state & federal minimum wage laws from 2003 to 2007, they determined that raises in the minimum wage requirement have no effect on poverty.4 Even when the analysis was repeated using a 50% broader definition of "poverty", the results were the same. An explanation for this is the lack of ability these laws have in reaching their target population. Minimum wage laws disproportionately effect those who are already well-off. Of those who benefited from the increases in the Federal Minimum Wage between 2007 and 2009, 90% weren't in poverty!2 Your turn, Con. Goodluck! 1. http://www.jec.senate.gov... 2. http://www.academia.edu... 3Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch et David Wittenberg, "Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS", Southern Economic Journal, 2000 4. http://www.epionline.org... 5. http://blog.lib.umn.edu...

7

55132eef-2019-04-18T17:58:07Z-00007-000

Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority I feel that this debate is important because I think it's important for people to understand that allowing women to vote and giving them more authority has proven to be disastrous--for marriage, family, and society. There is a deliberate agenda to put women in bigger positions of power while taking away the rights of men. I don't believe that women have any place in politics or positions of authority. However, I also believe that women are the most beautiful of God's creation. Women were made to help men and please him. In return, the man is suppose to love, honor, and protect his wife. Once upon a time, women were such beautiful cratures, but feminism has poisoned everything. Women are replacing a man's role and leadership, and the consequences have been dire. I welcome my female opponent to express her opinions, and I hope this will be a friendly debate.

13

1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00001-000

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.

41

3065c227-2019-04-18T17:51:27Z-00002-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

be it resolved that the national debt be repudiated This incredulous vessel has not been able to compute the nonsensical rant posted by pro.Analysis of pro's rant shall be attempted later in this round. First of all, con's case shall be stated.First of all terms must be defined.National Debt: the total amount of money which a country's government has borrowed. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Repudiate: http://oxforddictionaries.com... refuse to accept; reject:she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders chiefly Law refuse to fulfil or discharge (an agreement, obligation, or debt):breach of a condition gives the other party the right to repudiate a contract 2deny the truth or validity of:the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses This is the full resolution that pro is in favour of: A government should refuse to fulfil or discharge the total amount of money which a country's government has borrowed.The absurdity of this resolution is that it is asking a government to simply ignore what it owes. So in essence the government just doesn't pay many other nations back what is owes them, probably in the billions, and hopes that this will die down over time? If people like pro led nations, we'd be seeing world war three very soon.There is simply no reason to refuse to fulfil a debt to another nation. This will not only lead to aggravation of that nation and possibly war but also ruin the country's reputation that hasn't paid the debt and thus result in a huge amount of governments elsewhere banning businesses to engage with them (essentially leaving the country isolated like a neo-North Korea.This is insane, risky and far too prone to lead to huge conflicts with other nations to be advisable in the slightest to any nation hoping to achieve global success in any sense of the word.Now onto rebuttals (brace your self for a series of stating the obvious for it seems this is what must be done to rebut the nonsensical rant of pro's)."One common argument against repudiation is that it would result in a certain and devastating economic collapse."Nothing to rebut here, pro opens their speech speaking for con."Nothing could be further from the truth."A claim is either true or untrue. Since what pro stated before this was true, it is very possible many lies could be 'further' from the truth despite there being no scale of distance from it whatsoever."The sky will not fall if the government does not pay back all the money it has borrowed."But a nuclear bomb sure could fall from the sky onto its land if it doesn't pay back its debt to a country such as Russia or Pakistan (no racism intended, these nations are host to some of the biggest reserves of nuclear power in the world they are thus more dangerous to betray than a nation with less easy access to nuclear material for bombs). "The hysteria to the contrary is simply the squawking of an economically illiterate media; the same fools who tell you that consumption is the key to prosperity"Baseless, unjustified, false and ridiculous opinion stated as if it were fact. This is a fallacy of logic.In fact. Let me just list every single baseless, unjustified and false opinion stated as if it were fact in their speech.All of the following qualify: "try consuming your way to prosperity with your own finances and tell me how well you do" It is extremely likely one who consumes education, knowledge, skills, food, water and rest would end up very successful in life."the key to economic growth is savings." A nation that has yet to pay off debt, needn't save anything since it should be paying off its debt."savings are ravaged by inflation." No they are not."Who benefits from inflation? Leaving aside the Hayekian insight that inflation benefits those who get the new money first (the political class)" No one in the nation benefits."Supply and demand. This is why you hear old timers talking about a weeks pay for $50 or whatever shockingly low figure is used to describe a price in a distant past because the government has been printing so much money." Nonsensical rant which is completely irrelevant to the debate."Printing money benefits debtors at the expense of creditors." IT DOES NOT BENEFIT ANYONE!"since the money that pays back the loan is worth less than the money with which the loan was borrowed)" This would just mean more amounts of the same currency now have to be paid anyway."This creates a disincentive towards savings." What has this got to do with ANYTHING in this debate?"But savings are where real economic growth comes from" Spending wisely is where it comes form, merely hoarding back money to save it is stupid and futile, causing no growth at all."those savings are then loaned to entrepreneurs" Irrelevant."capital makes workers more productive and these more productive workers now earn a higher salary." BUT... The government still has a national debt to pay off that is increasing with a huge interest rate!"Another big problem with paying back the debt is that in order to pay it back you need to tax people." How is this a problem?" taxes are terrible for the economy" Such nonsense."they kill jobs" Taxes do not kill jobs."it's wrong to take someone else's property" This is exactly what the government of that nation has done to another nation. This is why it is in NATiONAL DEBT!" it's especially wrong to threaten to hurt them if they do not give you their property." What? This is seriously a nonsensical rant totally irrelevant to the debate."This is called extortion and it's against the law - except when the government does it, because the government can do anything they want, because they're the government and you're not." What the actual heck is pro going on about?"why should some random plumber pay back all the money that was sent to foreign dictators via foreign aid" Asking a why question usually is only valid if it is relevant to the debate. This is not relevant."given to rich agribusiness interests like subsidizing ethanol, or put into countless imperialist wars of aggression against poor people in little huts that could never have hurt anyone if they wanted to which they assuredly did not?" Complete and utter nonsense."If you take out a loan you are morally obligated to pay back that loan." The word pro is looking for is 'legally'."How can I possibly be obligated to pay back a loan for money that I never agreed to spend in the first place?" By taxing."Really it's the fault of whoever loaned the money in the first place." This is exactly why the government shouldn't ignore it for it is their fault."Why on earth would you loan money to an organization as cruel, as ruthless, with as brutal disregard for human life as the state?" Is this a joke? The state are the heads of a nation, their sole job is caring for the welfare of its people and the economy."Why would you seek to finance this vicious and repressive empire for the sake of a few points in interest?" Nonsensical rant begins again."Say proponents of stealing your money to pay back all the spending politicians have done in order to secure their own power, wealth and the wealth and power of the people who elected them, who would lend the government any more money if the debt was repudiated? And that's exactly the point. No one. Instead of these debt ceiling circuses there would be a very real debt ceiling. Bad credit. And how incredible would that be! If you knew that NO ONE could leverage your children's future. If the government learned a little fiscal restraint. I know I would spend like crazy with a trillion dollar credit card. Wouldn't you?"Nonsensical rant... In conclusion, it seems extremely obvious that if a government owes debts to other nations it better get up off its lazy arse and worry about paying them than 'repudiating it' which means to completely refuse to pay it.

38

e8bf89cb-2019-04-18T13:01:12Z-00001-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Shahid Afridi Better Umar Akmal I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am better than umar but who knows. I am bette

12

a1cc594d-2019-04-18T18:12:22Z-00003-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes. Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, "A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners." 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had "no impactson rates of sexual abstinence." [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...

44

f84a076a-2019-04-18T17:58:04Z-00000-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

Practicing Christians should not be invited to participate in our traditional seasonal festivities And the Pope. In response to my opponent's rebuttals, I should like to respond as follows: The fact that are so many different Christian practices and beliefs and its many variances in religious holiday dates demonstrates what an unprincipled and duplicitous religion Christianity really is, and why it has so many factions: Roman Catholics; Baptists; Methodists; Lutherans; Quakers; Pentecostals; Presbyterians; Latter-day Saints; Seventh-day Adventists, Restorationists; followers of Eastern Orthodoxy; Jehovah's Witnesses and Anglicans and members of countless other denominations all call themselves Christians yet they all have wildly different rituals and customs. That's because Christianity is a religion that gets blown about by the wind: rather than stand firmly by its doctrines and scriptures, it amends and adopts its teachings to accommodate the popular wants and beliefs of the general public at any given time and place. And that's why the Catholic Church no longer persecutes people that have been educated and know that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth - even though that concept was once considered heretical; that's also why the Church of England permits divorce; contraception; abortion and women priests while other churches don't, and it's also why Easter Day falls on different dates every year but Christmas Day always falls on the same date every year, although that date varies from denomination to denomination as we already know. Throughout its history, the Christian churches have always done whatever they had to in order to appease the masses: whether that be signing a pact with Hitler and abandoning the Jews to their fate in Nazi Germany; or whether that be the devout Roman Catholic prince Vlad the Impaler (the son of Vlad Dracul who was the inspiration for Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula) skewering 60,000 Ottomans on sharpened stakes in the name of Christianity in 15th Century Wallachia; or whether it be hijacking a pre-Christian mid-winter festival and passing its traditions and customs off as Christian. In short, the Christian churches have always done what ever it took to fill their collection boxes. Moving on, my opponent talks about "Christmas" (Christ's mass) being celebrated as a secular holiday by some while being observed as a religious festival by others, but the reality is that the true meaning of Yuletide has largely been forgotten and everybody thinks of Christmas as a Christian holiday (holy day). Few people now realise that iconic "Christmas" symbols such as holly, ivy, mistletoe, Yule logs, "Christmas" trees and "Christmas" lights all pre-date Christianity (and reindeers are not a native species of the Holy Land) and they have all just been appropriated by Christianity. Even Christmas carols were originally folk songs sung during Harvest-tide. Of course, there is no reason why people of other faiths or Christian denominations should not join in the mid-winter celebrations but they tend not to: December 25th is just another working day in China, India, Japan and Russia as well as in most African, Middle-Eastern and South-East Asian countries, although December 25th is a national holiday in Pakistan, but that's to celebrate the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, not Jesus Christ. However, it is not right that Christians in the West should muddy the waters by sending Christmas cards with nativity scenes and other religious images printed on them and by attending "Christmas" carol services at church while also decorating their homes with "Christmas" trees, "Christmas" lights, holly and ivy and thus spreading the myth that the mid-winter festivities have something to do with Christianity - they have their Christmas Day in January and they should stick to it. I deliberately have not mentioned Santa Claus, by the way, not because he has anything to do with the birth of Christ, he doesn't, but because the character is based on Saint Nicholas who was, at least, a Christian - although he actually lived in Asia Minor, not the North Pole and Saint Nicholas Day is actually the 6th December, not the 25th December. My opponent also claims there is nothing wrong with Christianity adopting other culture's traditions. Firstly, I would remark that it is odd that it has done so, as the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam have not and, secondly, I suspect that many Christians would complain if Islam or Judaism did adopt Christian practices and pass them off as their own in countries outside the Abrahamic religions' homelands in the Middle East. To illustrate this point, let's consider the spread of Islam in the West. In most of Europe Christianity is in decline and Islam is on the rise. For example, here in Britain, the 2011 Census showed that 59.3% of the population adhered to Christianity, down from 71.6% in 2001, while 4.8% of the population adhered to Islam, up from 2.7% in 2001. Additionally, a report entitled "The Future of the Church" found that more people regularly attended a mosque in 2004 than regularly attended church, while a study issued by Christian Research found that the number of Muslims attending services at British mosques will double the number of Christians attending church services by 2040. So, if Islam is becoming the dominant religion is what we think of as "Christian" countries then it will be completely appropriate, following my opponent's logic, for Islam to adopt Christmas, just as Christianity adopted Yuletide. Would my opponent and his fellow Christians approve, I wonder, if, in the not-too-distant future, the 25th December was to be officially renamed "Milad un Nabi Day" - the celebration of birth of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon Him)? The Prophet (peace be upon Him) wasn't born on 25th December, by the way, but then again neither was Jesus Christ, so who cares? Of course, not much would change at first as there would be too much public resistance, and the differences in the celebrations would be subtle and introduced gradually - just as Christianity overcame Yuletide in small increments. But after a while Father Christmas would become known as Father Milad un Nabi and it would be the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon Him) depicted in the manger, not Jesus Christ, and, of course, drinking alcohol and playing music would be frowned upon while praying to Mecca would be encouraged. Finally, if my opponent thinks traditional Christian dishes are unappetising he may still prefer them to the traditional Islamic dishes that would be served on Milad un Nabi Day, delicacies such as tabbouleh (bulgur wheat salad); kale pasche (boiled sheep brains, eyes, tongue and hooves) and ful madammas (dried beans). I suspect that my opponent, like most people in Europe and America, would resent the Islamification of Christmas, even though they might not be Christians, and they might complain about it in similar terms that I have about the Christianisation of Yule, even though I am not a Pagan. That's why I reassert that practicing Christians should not be invited to participate in our traditional seasonal festivities. Thank you for reading and Yuletide Greetings to you all! Catholics in Nazi Germany: . http://jesuswouldbefurious.org... Vlad the Impaler: . http://www.oldcuriosityshop.net... Strictly Religious Christmas: . http://www.wikihow.com... Religious adherence in the UK: . http://www.vexen.co.uk... Decline in Christianity, Rise of Islam in the UK: . http://www.christiantoday.co.uk....

16

8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00008-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: "Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients."[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies.   [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011,  http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011

3

1b93e28c-2019-04-18T13:45:18Z-00006-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Legally Raising The Minimum Wage In The US Is Pointless I argue that it's pointless to directly, legally increase the minimum wage in the US. We must correctly identify the cause of low wages before aiming to raise them. The first issue I'd like to bring into this discussion is the job losses for manufacturing of material goods. "Made in the USA" products were once quite prevalent. Jobs related to these products were the backbone of our middle class. These jobs were generally quite plentiful and could be performed with minimal education. Today, these jobs are rare. Profiting from something of actual material worth in America is incredibly difficult. The reasons for this effect most jobs in America, but the manufacturing sector has been hit hardest and is the best example. Some reasons for this are as follows: Environmental Regulation: Good or bad, this is expensive. The businesses that profiteer from the legal requirements of this are often more profitable than the businesses they are pro-actively investigating (or regulating, if you want to call it that.) Fines against businesses for breaching these regulations are very hefty and often fail to scale to the size of the business. Legal fees and lobbying for certain exemptions are also things that influence the survivability of fresh competition. Less competition means higher profitability for larger corporations but less job-market competition in related or similar fields. Workers Rights: Human resources, safety inspections, disability taxes, safety meetings and regulation requirements, hazard analysis, swaths of legal documentation and court-preparedness, worker training, supervision, mandatory safety equipment from companies with patents or licensing fees, massive insurance payments and bigger penalties. I could go on for hours. Tax: 90,000 pages of tax code. IRS penalties. Legal costs. Cost of hiring tax experts. Special taxes that apply to your sector. Volatility due to political climate. Resources and waste management: Manufacturers often need to pay extra to use energy, water, attain resources, negotiate trade deals, manage waste on their own, provide their own infrastructure instead of utilizing services provided by the tax pool they pay into, and more. Shareholders, banks, and stock market management: This is crucial and at the heart of most successful business. Don't spend money developing good practice in these places, and you will be out-played by the companies who excel in these fruitless games. Yet another thing that produces zero material use for society. I mean, I could probably go on for days, but I'm not quite an expert. I'd hire an expert if I had the kind of money required to start a business that has any hope of succeeding. Now as I said, much of these things are actually good. Many are horrible, but well-intended. All of these things cost a lot of money on the government level and the corporate level. Tax payers (workers) pay for the government side of things, corporations pay for both. Let's even go ahead and say we keep all of this and don't even analyze the actual cost of all the governmental de-stabilization of the free market (can we still call it free?) What happens when we start freeing up trade with China, or India, or Taiwan. Japan, Africa, Korea. What do you think should happen, when we trade with almost anyway and we can't make their markets adhere to the same standards that ours do? Well, we'll probably get the cheapest goods from the countries who can trade with us as efficiently as possible. I'll tell you, it won't only have to do with the skill and efficiency of their work force. It'll probably have more to do with their total lack of caution for the well-being of their workers, the environment, common-wealth, and anything you can consider good business practice other than what's good for profitability. So after we've done all this to improve our business ethic by governing the market, we go and open up that market to the entire world and let our businesses try to compete. When they fail, we blame it on mysterious "economic crises." Now, after decades of building on all of this, the job market is extremely competitive. Not for the people hiring, but for the people looking to be hired. People are seeking higher education to evade the growing number of jobs for our "working poor" class. They're gambling on their ability to be better than the next person, hoping for better schools, grades, or trades. All of which require more investment at the younger ages, and a great deal more stress. Meanwhile, the jobs available for these educated people are showing no sign of increasing. This means more people with more debt, still finding themselves in the "working poor" class. These people actually generate less tangible earnings than those who give up entirely on education. Wealth that builds over generations, such as that earned by property (or at least not lost to loan penalties) is diminishing as well; and we know that poverty transcends generations. These are big problems. Of course, the root issue is the lack of jobs. The lack of jobs appears to be due to the volatility of our government impacting our free market in-proportionately to the markets we trade with. Trading with foreign countries is a privilege that is generally reserved for the richest corporations. Corporations that have copyrights, patents, and other mechanisms to restrict the free market through law. They even have funds to lobby for politicians, and pay for campaigns necessary to run elections. In the end, none of it seems to serve the common American worker. Our politicians are asking for our vote with the promise of a minimum wage increase; is this the solution? I don't think so. I think a minimum wage increase is a bandaid that will actually harm the worker more over time. We haven't even covered inflation. Inflation of our currency, cost of goods, the every-increasing cost of borrowing on a national level.. Does it make sense to simply force businesses to pay more to employees, when the climate that resulted in this abuse has yet to be reformed? A say minimum wage increases are just political tools. They serve to do nothing to fix the root issues, and may actually harm us more in the long run. Minimum wage increases have only served to buy temporary calm from the people of this nation. It's being touted around as something to save single moms, college students, and struggling low-economic areas. It's none of these things. Minimum wage is just a fresh carrot for a very tired horse. I think it's about time people realized that.

42

49b078ea-2019-04-18T17:39:26Z-00000-000

Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Hockey should be America's past time. Let's be honest with ourselves, disregarding credibility to any source. Do you actually think hockey is more popular than basketball? Football? Baseball? Let's even throw in track and field and soccer. If hockey has the ability to become a past time, then all the sports I named above should also definitely be American pastimes squared. Hockey does have an appreciation from its fan base do not get me wrong, however, according to sources, football, basketball and baseball are among the top watched and played sports in the U.S. today. Also your argument is flawed since you described why hockey is a harder sport to play rather convincing us why it should receive the prestigious title of a pastime.

32

2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00016-000

Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11

22

fb3d70a0-2019-04-18T11:18:26Z-00000-000

Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Best solution to a conflict is a punch in the head You don't haft to hit his head you want to go for the ribs. So he'll feel that for a few days. That will make him rember it just break his rib bones and boom their you go a man in agony who shut up

43

5bf10085-2019-04-18T19:00:32Z-00003-000

Should bottled water be banned?

Homeopathy should be banned I will be arguing throughout this debate that homeopathy should be banned. Homeopaths should have their businesses shut down, and the government - in tandem with medical establishments - should both actively discourage people from going to homeopaths, and actively attempt to find any practicing homeopaths to ensure that they stay out of business. Whilst specific countries - and institutions within these countries - will probably end up being used as examples and case studies, this is a principle that extends globally. As I am uncertain which parts of my argument my opponent will focus on, I will spend this round briefly laying out the structure of my argument alongside brief specifics of my argument. As it becomes clear how my opponent is approaching this debate, I will end up bolstering the argument accordingly, and reserve the right to present new arguments to re-inforce the principle of any part of my argument if necessary. As such, my argument is essentially as follows: 1) Homeopathy does not have a sound view of how medicine works. Any benefit that does result from using such treatments must therefore be down to the placebo effect alone. - As my opponent pointed out in his opening round, a key tenet of homeopathy is that high dilutions of the active ingredient within water intensifies the effect of the cure. This does not seem to make medical sense, given perhaps the closest medical example of innoculations, which clearly do not infect the patient - an innoculation precisely being a diluted version of the disease. Another key tenet is that water is able to hold a "memory" of the active ingredient, and so somehow provide the benefits of the active ingredient by proxy. Even leaving aside the question of how this "memory" works, exactly why this is better than directly giving someone the active ingredient itself - especially when giving the ingredient directly is proven to work in traditional medicine - is uncertain. 2) Whilst the placebo effect is very useful on a small scale - for headaches, colds, etc. - and occasionally has its moments on a larger scale, it cannot be relied upon to treat people in their hour of need in the same way that other medicine can. - The placebo effect is very much dependent upon the psychology of the person involved, in addition to the precise nature of the illness/disease being suffered. For example, if I am bleeding profusely from a primary artery, any amount of psychological assurance that I will be fine will inevitably fail and I would die within minutes. In addition, the uncertainty behind the level of psychological assurance required will always be an imprecise art - how sure need I be that my doctor knows what she's talking about, or that the medicine will work? - and so the placebo outcome cannot be ensured with any reliability. 3) People taken in by homeopathy are less likely to use conventional medicine in general. This causes huge harms when it comes to life-threatening diseases - malaria, cancer, etc. It is in this harmful consequence that the main harm of homeopathy can be seen, which is why it should be banned. - The kind of people who turn to alternative medicines are those who are disaffected with traditional medicine, and are considering other forms of treatment. When homeopathy appears to work for them - perhaps due to the placebo effect on the small scale, or because of other treatments (deliberately or otherwise) given alongside the homeopathic remedy - they are therefore more likely to use homeopathy to the exclusion of other treatments. This becomes a problem when the patient suffers more serious illnesses, where a placebo alone cannot help. - This is how a seemingly harmless remedy (which, given the level of dilution, essentially removes any active ingredient in many remedies - as my opponent pointed out - and becomes nothing but water) can lead to incredibly harmful consequences, meaning that it should be banned. As I said earlier, as it is not clear what parts of this argument my opponent will focus on (for instance, it would be a reasonable approach for him to concede entirely that homeopathic remedies are not medically viable, whilst maintaining that it nonetheless shouldn't be banned), I will for now leave my argument at this level. I await my opponent's response. . http://www.1023.org.uk... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://homeopathyworks.org...

44

2db5fce7-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00004-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed Australia day is on January 26th for many reasons, it's the day that we come together as a nation to celebrate the amazing country we live in. On Australia Day, over half of the nation"'s population of 24.3 million attend either an organised community event, or get together with family and friends with the intention of celebrating our national day. Many more spend the public holiday relaxing with family and friend. We come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future.

38

82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Medical Marijuana should be a legal option I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f

38

5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00002-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. Firstly, I am not arguing that medical marijuana should never be legalized. I am arguing that it should not be legalized yet.Argument 1: Safety Concerns.Many studies have indicated that marijuana has no safety issues and some even claim it is healthy. Not every study agrees though. Some indicate major health concerns regarding marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, a major component of marijuana.) A study in the Journal of Immunology shows that THC in marijuana can promote tumor growth (1: Medscape). According to the study, the components of THC and marijuana smoke can harm the bodies anti-tumor response.Most studies that claim marijuana can slow down tumor growth involved the injection of THC (not marijuana, just the THC chemical.) Not only is medical marijuana not injected, but marijuana wasn't involved in the studies claiming THC slows tumors. The people responsible for the study even made clear that smoking cannabis will not fight cancer, "It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis..."(2: Reuters). My first listed study, that showed marijuana can increase tumor growth, used actual marijuana. It also studied the smoking of marijuana instead of just injecting it. Another study showed that the use of marijuana can most definitely increase the risk of Lung Cancer (with a 97% confidence interval.) Every joint smoked a day can increase the chance of lung cancer by 8% (3: European Respiratory Journal.) While some studies show no connection between smoking cannabis and getting lung cancer, others show that every 3 joints a day increases the risk by the equivalent of 20 cigarettes a day (4: BBC News.) Other studies indicate an increase in the risk of Schizophrenia. How many studies? Schizophrenia.com cites over 30 (5: Schizophrenia.) Others even link Cannabis to Anxiety and Panic Attacks (6: Anxiety Public Hub) and another shows that, after the first hour, the risk of heart attack increases five fold (7: National Institute of Drug Abuse.) For every study that shows no connection between marijuana and health problems, there is another study that says otherwise. With the lack of solid consensus, it would be wrong to say marijuana is, without a doubt, safe. Many studies indicate some harsh side effect of using marijuana, and without a definite answer regarding the health concerns of the drug, it would be gravely irresponsible and dangerous to legalize the product for medical use. Until we know for sure what the full effect of smoking marijuana is, we shouldn't legalize the product.Many high-end studies show the side effects as being more grave than smoking plain cigarettes. We can't say for sure that marijuana is vastly dangerous, but it's the fact that we can't say for sure that makes legalizing medical use of the drug such a terrible and irresponsible move. But what if another manner of usage was applied? The injection of marijuana can cause Intravenous marijuana Syndrome (8: NCBI.) Injecting marijuana has been known to kill test mice (9: Guardian.) The injection of a chemical like THC is highly dangerous.There are too many studies linking marijuana and THC to serious health issues to conclude it's safe enough to legalize. The lack of definite Information means that marijuana for medical use should still remain illegal. Of course many medical drugs come with health concerns, few as major as what many studies link to marijuana. Although claiming that medical marijuana should be legal because many unhealthy drugs are legal would apply faulty logic, assuming that those bad drugs should be legal as well. 1: http://www.medscape.com...2: http://www.reuters.com...3: http://erj.ersjournals.com...4: http://news.bbc.co.uk...5: http://www.schizophrenia.com...6: http://www.panicattacks.com.au...7: http://www.drugabuse.gov...8: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...9: http://www.theguardian.com...2: Rate of Addictionmarijuana is, in fact, addictive. It has been suggested that as much as 30% of marijuana users can develop an addiction, while 9% will develop a severe addiction (10: Psychology Today.) Those numbers are far higher than the average rate of addiction for other drugs. This argument rests on the premise that no medical drug with a high chance of addiction should ever be legal.10: http://www.psychologytoday.com...3: Poor Prescription MethodThe method of prescription in the US is dirt poor. Adam Tod Brown, an author at Cracked.com, wrote an article describing how easy it is to get medical marijuana in California (11: Cracked.) The ease of getting medical marijuana is too great. This isn't a black market issue either. The largest problem regarding the ease of obtaining the drug is on the prescription side of legalization.Most people can obtain a prescription without needing a serious condition (like cancer), or even having a slightly above-average condition at all. Half of all prescription usages aren't regarding any form of cancer but are instead for small conditions that would hardly get a person normal medication (12: NORML.)The method of obtaining a prescription for the drug is dangerously flawed. Until major reform takes place, medical marijuana should remain illegal. The method of obtaining the drug promotes black markets and illegal usage. The flawed process also promotes illegally obtaining the drug. The process makes illegally obtaining the drug (which, without taxes, and regulations, is much cheaper) easier than when medical marijuana was illegal. 11: http://www.cracked.com...12: http://www.mapinc.org...Conclusion: Because of the vastly lacking sum of information regarding the safety of marijuana and THC, the large sum of surveys that indicate gravely negative side effects, the rate of addiction, and the terribly flawed method of obtaining a prescription, it would be irresponsible to make medical marijuana legal.Until these major issues are fixed, medical marijuana should remain illegal.

1

1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00007-000

Should teachers get tenure?

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed I will not debunk some of my opponents claims. Introduction I resent that my opponent stated that it is 'unfortunate' that we are having this debate both here on a national level. This statement is outrageous. Should the status quo not be challenged, especial If the status quo is harming America's economic performance, and damaging America's schools? Also, this debate is not about whether education and teachers are important. Of course I realize the value of teachers and education. This is the common ground that we both agree on. However, it is because I favor them that I am opposed to teacher unions. Education and the future of America should not be hijacked by special interests aimed at helping adults rather than students. To state that anti-union is anti-teacher is like saying being in favor of antitrust law is anti-business. Protecting Teachers My opponent first claims that teachers need protection. This is a false claim. Here's why a school board would be unwilling to fire a teacher haphazardly: First, the process of searching and finding a teacher is a lengthy and expense process. To find a teacher one has to look over many applications, set up interviews, and pay for advertising the job. Once the teacher is hired, one has to pay for teacher orientation, and file paper work for the new employee. Second off, it's risky business to fire a teacher that is competent and replace him or her with a teacher that has the potential to be incompetent. In the hiring process, even If one thoroughly looks over credentials, there is still a great possibility that the applicant is incompetent. So as long as the teacher has a decent level of competency, it is much better for the school to keep the teacher then to fire the teacher and risk a new teacher. Third, If a school or school district is known to have a high turnover rate, then it's unlikely that competent teachers will apply there. Therefore a school district is unlikely to do this. Employees in the private sector do not need to be protected, in which 93.1% of employees in the private sector are not part of unions. Even in the public sector, 63.8% of employees are not unionized. However, it should be noted that If incompetent teachers are not fired, then it means that recent college graduates and those seeking a teacher position that are component are unable to do so. The problem is that teachers are protected too much. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher once he or she receives tenure. In New York City, a "rubber room" was creates specifically designed to pay bad teachers to do nothing. Literally, teachers that got in trouble for sexual misconduct, unwilling to follow the curriculum, or abusiveness were just sent to a building to do what they wanted with pay and benefits[1]. Teachers receive more job security than any other occupation. There is no reason for this. Protecting bad teachers simply hurt the schools. Students do not learn what they need to. Often times, teachers need to review material that should have been learned previous years, but an incompetent teacher simply did not teach the material. This drags everyone down. Education is too important for bad teachers to recieve protection. According to this video, If just the bottom 6-10 percent of all teachers were eliminated, then American education would be at the level of Finland, a nation with top education. (watch 1:08 onward). Past Practices If I am correct, my opponent's main argument here is that teachers have the right to collective bargaining because it is not specifically prohibited in state and local law. This argument fails for many reasons. For one, this debate framework is based on moral principles not legal principals. I specially stated that I was using an Unitarianism framework. This is a basic appeal to authority argument, using the law as a legit authority. It would equivalent to if this was the year 1940 in Nazi, Germany for me to argue that one should not hide Jews from the government because it is against the law. Second, this argument easily fails once a law is introduced to bar teachers from collective right bargaining. Other Legal Issues I will repeat my argument that I stated earlier. Legal issues should not be a major consideration since laws can be changed, and are not a moral authority. My opponent states that teachers should receive collective bargaining rights since other public employees like firefighters, police, etc. also maintain the right. Just because other public employees engage in collective bargaining does not make it morally right. This is analogous stating that a murderer should not be locked in jail since other murders get away with it scot free. I am against collective bargaining in the public sector. I would remove the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and other public employees, however this debate is specifically about teachers. In terms of the argument that the NLRA does not cover public employees, there are also many checks that exist in the private sector that reduce the power of unions while these checks do not exist in the public sector. It should also be noted that many public employees can not engage in specific collective bargaining tactics. For example, police officers are not allowed to go on strike. So it is not unreasonable to remove teacher's rights to collective bargaining. Specialization and Demands My opponent states that since teachers invest in a college education to obtain a teaching degree, that he or she should be protected. I will explain the problem with this. There is no reason to suspect that teacher unions increase teacher employment. If you protect bad teachers you can't let potentially good teachers enter the market. So this argument actually works in my favor, since college graduates spend many years studying the field and get into debt, only to find that they can't get a job because there are no vacancies. It's also another point in my favor that teacher unions increase the salary and benefts of teachers, creating a surplus of teacher applicants and increasing the number of those who will invest in a teaching degree but will not be able to find a teaching career. Many other jobs that require more specialization are less protected. For example, Doctors and Lawyers have to spend much more years and tuition to practice in the field. However, neither doctors nor lawyers are unionized. One out of every 57 doctor will lose their medical license and one out of 97 lawyers will lose their license to practice law. Remember, this is losing their license to practice, not just getting fired, the latter a far less severe punishment. For teachers, 1 in every 1000 teacher is fired after tenure for performance based reasons [2]. However, the question is: should people be protected from the financial risks they make? No. Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice. An entrepreneur that decides to start a new business must bear the risks as well. Consumers should not be forced to buy the product and the business should not be protected. If new technology automates jobs, then there's no reason these jobs should be protected. Once one gets into the mindset that jobs must be protected in order to save them from mal-investments, economic growth, consumer choice and efficiency cannot be maintained. Jobs will always exist through this creative destructive process; they will just be reallocated to different fields. Even If a college graduate is unable to find a teacher career, a college degree is versatile and many people enter careers outside of their specialization. Conclusion: I have refuted the legal claims and protectionism claims my opponent has made. I look forward to my opponents response to my arguments. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://www.youtube.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3]

23

e21a5084-2019-04-18T12:37:53Z-00003-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia should be legal Just please answer the questions posted in my original argument, and if you do, I will be impressed.

49

dc5cae13-2019-04-18T15:01:47Z-00004-000

Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

Vaccinations Should be Mandatory Thank you for accepting my FIRST DEBATE! I am familiar with the rules of the site, because I have been looking on for a while and decided to create an account.The first round will simply consist of a message of acceptance. As for the rest of the rounds, let's see where the debate takes us!I ask none of the judges to have any personal biases and vote purely from a judging viewpoint. If you have any religious or philosophical objections to this subject, please message me in advance!Thanks!

24

7af1d731-2019-04-18T13:35:26Z-00004-000

Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?

Implement a Flat Tax w/ Standard Deduction Thanks to Valladarex for suggesting this topic and for agreeing to debate me. I"m looking forward to a spirited discussion.In this round, I will briefly outline what I see as a series of fair and equitable adjustments to the U.S. Tax Code. In Round Two, both my opponent and I will go into greater detail and advocacy for our basic plans.The United States Tax Code as currently constituted reflects a series of political compromises. This has made it complex and unwieldy, but it also has the virtue of reflecting a balancing of political interests through the democratic process. My aim, then, would be to preserve the basic structure of the tax code without making any radical changes, while also seeking to implement reforms that simplify personal income tax and eliminates various perverse incentives.Here is a basic summary of what I would propose:Lower corporate income tax: The United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. In our global economy, this has encouraged many corporations to keep their cash reserves overseas and avoid the hefty tax bill that would come with repatriation. We should lower the corporate income tax rate to be more commensurate with other Western economies to encourage those assets to be brought home and spent in America.Treat capital gains as ordinary income: Returns on investment are taxed at a much lower rate than income earned from labor, which is why people like Warren Buffet will talk about paying less in taxes proportionately than his secretary, or why Mitt Romney only paid about 17% in taxes the year before he ran for President. Part of the justification for this has been our high corporate income tax rate, which is so high that investors can credibly argue that treating capital gains as ordinary income effectively subjects them to double taxation on the same earning. Thus, in conjunction with lowering the corporate income tax rate, increase capital gains rates so that the investor class pays the same on their passive income as they would if they had worked for it.Eliminate the cap on payroll taxes: Medicare and Social Security are not funded by income taxes, but on a flat 7.65% payroll tax on earnings up to $118,500. People making $800,000 a year, then, pay the same amount as someone making $120,000. The bulk of this tax burden falls on the middle class, who make less than $118,500. There are two great reasons for eliminating the cap: first, this is an incredibly regressive tax, and the tax burden should be shared more equitably with higher earners. Second, eliminating the payroll tax limit makes Social Security solvent into the indefinite future.Eliminate taxes for income earned overseas: The United States is one of the few nations to subject its citizens living abroad to its income taxes - income that a citizen earns while living in Paris, France, for example, is still taxed as though the individual lived in Paris, Texas. Often, the income is subjected to taxes in the country of residence as well, leading to a significant tax burden. This policy should be ended.Increase tax rates on higher earners: For decades, we have slashed at tax rates for high earners under the theory that these tax savings would be plugged back into the economy, creating jobs and boosting spending. George H.W. Bush, before being selected as Reagan"s running mate, called this "voodoo economics," and the intervening 36 years have not proved him wrong. The American economy, and the American middle class, were at their strongest during the era of significant progressive taxation. Make the IRS do taxes for you: For most people, the tax code is a pain because you have to prepare your own return, and risk auditing if you get it wrong. In most nations, the tax collecting authority prepares the return for you, and you simply need to make corrections if any errors have been made. While this is a bit reductive, the basic reason the United States doesn"t already do this is called "H&R Block lobbyists." To simplify taxes for the vast majority of Americans, we should make the process as convenient and painless as possible. That means not wasting a pile of consumer money on one or two tax preparation companies.Thank you, and I"ll eagerly await the details of my opponent"s plan.

34

19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00000-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America Impact Definition 1a--> There are many definitions I agree. Which is why I urge you to accept both. To have a direct impact on AND to have a powerful effect. b--> Notice my opponents definitions anyway where he said, "An impact could be direct or indirect."… Basically from this you should see that the impact is all dependent on the actor. The economy is indirect, and the child molester cases are a direct effect. Both of these are acceptable and both of them prove that social networking sites have a neutral impact because it ALL depends on the actor, something that isn't specified in the resolution. So impact can be a baseball bat. But a baseball bat is a tool, JUST LIKE a social networking site. c--> 1) It also says effect, please use that if impact in the impact definition is that bad of an ordeal. 2) That must mean that Webster's Dictionary isn't legit. Which is absolutely ridiculous. d--> If social networking sites were to have no members, then they would have no impact right? This is the same as hammers, guns, and even baseball bats. So if you even accept the positive influences of social networking sites of my opponent, then you must see that it has only been used well. The ACTOR has the impact NOT the TOOL. 2--> Ok, but you misinterpret my position which I'll get to later. 3--> Your entire position is based on the idea that tools are positive OR negative and can't be both. But what I have shown is that it is not the tool that decides this, it is the person. I have proven this through guns, baseball bats, hammers, and of course social networking sites. If you have yet to understand my position (judges), then think of it like this. Social Networking Sites, have BOTH types of impacts on us (positive AND negative). The impact that happens in a subjective case can be positive OR negative, but when you look at it objectively, you will see a mixture. Thus you can not determine the actual impact, but rather, notice the true determining factor. The user of the networking site. 3a--> Are you contending that the site of the social networking site helps our economy and fights the war on terror? If anything you have conceded the fact that it helps sexual predators. Also the gun did aid in the killing (just like the aiding of sexual predators), but it is not what had the impact. It is the one pulling the trigger or the one lying of his age and stealing a child to rape them. No difference. So would you contend that guns have a negative impact on society? Or would you agree with me that it is the shooter, not the tool that determines the positive or negative impact. 4--> Cross-apply the sexual predators and child-parent relationship harms against this point. It proves that "on balance" it is the user of the social networking site that causes the impact. 5--> EXACTLY! It has both positive and negative impacts, so how can you claim that "Social Networking Sites have a positive impact on the United States" when there are ALSO negative ones as well. Economy: 1) The USA Today link evidence only proves my point. That the newspaper sales have gone down and has generally switched to TV and Social Networking Sites. AKA: The Economy has been going up for Social Networking Sites and down for newspapers. A transfer from one to the other creates a net-benefit of nothing. And although the evidence points to a few sources, it fails to even talk about Social Networking Sites. Therefore, they could be a part of the downfall of Social Networking Sites. I for one know of several people who stop reading newspapers and rather use the internet to get their news. "Just ask thousands of people who benefit from a good economy how they felt when they had nothing to give their child to eat."--> 2) I really don't think that the few pennies that people are saving from this minor change are not going to feed or not feed a family. It is nice, certainly, but not going to be the reason that I get to have chicken rather than chicken ramen noodles. ONE GROUP OF INCOME IS NOT GOING TO CREATE OR DESTROY THE ECONOMY! 3) 250,000 new social networking sites?!?! How can any legitimate jobs be created out of this? Not to mention that this will lead to a growing obesity rate :D … And those new fatties are probably the ones raping our children. "Look i agree that there are some negative impacts however there are way more good impacts than bad"--> 4) Even if the judges agree that the positive outweigh the negative, you still can't claim that it is ONLY a positive impact (like the resolution asks for). In that case, the resolution shall be negated AS: "That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive AND NEGATIVE impact on the United States of America dependant on the user of the site." From this, you vote CON! Bullying: I got the evidence out of an evidence packet that gets sent to our school for our team. If it isn't legit, then you can bring it up with "Squirrel Killers." 1) You're a friend with me on a Social Networking Site and you hardly even know me. Watch this… I hate you… Now you see that. I just bullied you and you had no choice in the matter. The site did nothing to prevent it and if we were in real life, I doubt I would have been able to even say it. This is because social networking sites make it so much easier over the internet. You can hurt someone just as much without having to say it in person. A lot easier for mean people like me ;) 2) You claim that there is no net-impact. But look to the situation where some neighbor parents pushed a girl to suicide through a social networking sites. This would not have happened in real life since they couldn't pretend to be someone (like they were). Thus there ARE impacts because of social networking sites. Sexual Predators: "Mostly people that they know"--> -As you can tell, we are now friends on a social networking site and we do not know each other. There are several people that I have "met" online and I know others who have as well. -Therefore the sexual predator arguments still stand. Please flow through the evidence and by this, you can further see the inherent negative impacts which thus proves that it is all dependant on the user of the tool (in this situation, the social networking site being used by sexual predators… They have a negative impact just like the advertisers and small business people have a positive impact. They use the tool good OR bad and the tool doesn't determine ANYTHING. Terrorism: "Kids are eager to learn from their peers not their parents"--> -Which is why bullying has such a powerful impact on social networking sites. Please cross-apply this statement on the bullying line of arguing. -Also, are you saying that we ought not be concerned with kids learning from their parents? Users of social networking sites are getting younger and younger. It will only be some time before everything is learned online (from my opponents statement). This is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing. Kids must learn from their parents. "4. Terrorism outweighs any neg impact and thus Pro wins"--> -The War on Terrorism argument was ONLY linked to the economy which was argued earlier. -We are not going to win or lose the war on terror because we do or do not have social networking sites. Nor is there going to make that big of a difference. Such as I proved before with the economy. Democracy: There was good debate on the candidates (positive) and some unnecessary slanderous videos on the presidential candidates. Because of this, you MUST see that there are both positive AND negative impacts DEPENDING on the user of the tool (of social networking sites). Because of this, I urge you to vote CON! Thank you for this GREAT debate!

29

2992f802-2019-04-18T14:22:55Z-00001-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

European countries should restrict immigration Most migrants aren"t even from Syria, and have not been affected by the Syrian civil war. They are pretending to be Syrian in order to get to Western Europe. According to the Serbian boarder police 90% of those arriving in Macedonia claim they are Syrian even though they have no documents to prove it. The chief of the European Union border agency Frontex said that trafficking in fake Syrian passports has increased."A lot of people enter Turkey with fake Syrian papers because they know that they'll get asylum in the EU more easily," Fabrice Leggeri said. http://www.smh.com.au... Many are fleeing conflict in other countries besides Syria. Many others who are Syrian or are fleeing conflict in another country aren"t refugees. A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. They were refugees when they left Syria and came to Turkey. They were safe in Turkey but have left and are coming to Western Europe for a higher standard of living. This makes them economic migrants. 72 per cent of the migrants are men. 15 per cent are women and 13 per cent are children. Many of these men have clean clothes and Iphones. They appear to be well fed. Yet the media pushes a narrative of starving families desperate to escape war. Lets correct that. They"ve escaped war and many aren"t even from a war torn area. Many are well fed, with technology ect. 21% are Syrianhttp://ec.europa.eu... So most of the migrants are not refugees, and are not fleeing danger in Syria. They are conomic migrant"s coming to Europe for a higher standard of living. Many immigrants come to European countries to abuse their welfare system. http://www.infowars.com... Economist Tino Sanandaji, immigrant, told Wente, that the "generous" country is facing huge problems, particularly when it comes to employment and crime"There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees," [Sanandaji] told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don"t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives. In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. "Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD," Mr. Sanandaji said.Migrants are leaving Denmark after Denmark cut the welfare budget for migrants in half. Many economic migrants are coming to Europe to enjoy welfare benefits. Another point that Mr. Sanadaji brings up is education. 45 per cent of children in Sweden who do poorly on tests are immigrants. Sweden"s welfare state has attracted many people who do not care about their kids education, getting a job or integrating into Swedish society. Stefan Molyneux from freedomain radio also brings up the problem European school kid will have if their classes are filed with children who can"t even speak their language. https://en.wikipedia.org... According to Wikipedia 86 per cent of men n Syria and 73 percent of women in Syria and 79 per cent of the general population in Syria are literate. So European school kids will have to be in class rooms with other children who don"t speak their language, many of whom can"t even read or write"which will obviously be detrimental to the education systems in European countries. Another problem is assimilation. Taking in thousands and thousands if people from a different country, with a different religion, a different culture and a different language all within a year are committing cultural suicide. When so many people come in a short period of time assimilation is nearly impossible. When you come to a country you assimilate to their standards, not the other way around. This is why many people were bothered when German school girls were told not to wear miniskirts to avoid attacks from migrants. http://www.infowars.com... http://www.i24news.tv... When Hungarian minster Viktor Orban made this point about assimilation and cultural preservation he was called a xenophobe. When Israel and Kuwait"s prime ministers made the same points they were not shamed or called xenophobic. Appearing on Middle Eastern television, a Kuwaiti politician stated, "In the end you cannot accept people from a different ethnicity, culture and environment." http://www.infowars.com... There appears to be a double standard when European countries who have taken more people than they can handle are shamed for not taking enough but non European countries who"ve taken in 0 migrants aren"t shamed. Many European countries are, indeed taking more people than they can economically and socially support. As Patrick J. Buchanan said unless you would personally take them in to you house, pay for their existence than you have nor tight to tell European counties to do so. http://buchanan.org...(Pat%2BBuchanan%2BUpdate) I would like to rephrase Mr. Buchanans statement. Unless you would personally take in a group of people, many of whom had committed violent crimes, and pay for their existence you shouldn"t be telling Europe to do so. While most of the migrants have been, many were caught on camera assaulting Europeans. In one case they shouted "alauhu akbar f you" Also an eyewitness at the Italy-Austrian border she saw an elderly Italian woman grabbed by her hair and pulled from her car by a group of "aggressive young men" who wanted to steal the car to get to Germany, while others threw excrement at bystanders. Other compilation videos show African migrants tearing down traffic lights, eating people up and attacking stores. http://www.infowars.com... Migrants were also caught on camera throwing rocks at Hungarians http://www.infowars.com... Another video shows migrants in Macedonia refusing to take water from Red Cross workers. Another video migrants at a train station in Hungary throwing bottled water onto train tracks that was being handed out by police. Another video shows migrants robbing a Hungarian man who was attempting to equally distribute donated gifts http://www.infowars.com... The worse violent crime that a migrant has done recently was in Germany when a 7 year of white German girl was raped by north African migrant in a park. http://www.infowars.com... this isn"t surprising considering how immigration has effected violent crime like rape in other European countries Denmark 2012 figures show that Somalis were sentenced for crimes, including innumerable sexual assaults, almost ten times more often than those with Danish citizenship. More than 50% of all convicted rapists in Denmark have an immigrant background, according to official statistics, despite the fact that immigrants and their descendants account for less than 10 per cent of the population. http://www.bt.dk... Sweden Since it opened its doors in the mid 1970"s Sweden has become the rape capital of the west, with only the African counutry of Lesotho recording more sexual assaults. Rapes in Sweden has risen by 1,472% since the mid-70"s, with 6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in 1975."77.6 percent of the country"s rapists are identified as "foreigners" There is a report by Lars Hedegaard and his colleague Ingrid Carlqvist, two journalists who documented, "A new trend (that) reached Sweden with full force over the past few decades: gang rape " virtually unknown before in Swedish criminal history. The number of gang rapes increased spectacularly between 1995 and 2006. Since then no studies of them have been undertaken."Last year, Swedish police also released a list of 55 "no go zones," mostly Muslim ghettos, where law enforcement and ambulance workers are at risk of violent attack. In 2013, Stockholm saw a wave of violent riots by mostly immigrant youth. Recently an investigation by Swedish newspaper Dala demokraten found that Arab migrants are being promised "free blonde Swedish girls" and tax payer funded luxury treatment if they pay people smugglers to help them reach Scandinavia http://www.infowars.com... The U.K has experienced an epidemic of Muslim rape gangs abusing white English girls. The most notable case was in Rotehrham. Muslim rape gangs abused white girls in other places which Ill link articles to in the comments. My moms family is Muslim. Not all Muslim and immigrants in Europe should take responsibility for what some do. but there is a problem of violence, crime, poverty and welfare dependence in many European immigrant communities.

35

b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00000-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Thank you debatability for challenging me to this topic. It's been a pleasure. INTRODUCTION I think pro has came at this debate the wrong way. Since the start of round 3 she has been on the defensive, which is really bad. The reason being is because, depending on the judge's voting style she'll typically either have the full burden of proof or at least share it with me. She has spent most of this debate attacking my arguments while barely defending her own and at the end of the day when the dust clears. My arguments still stand and hers have completely fallen. AFFIRMING THE DISJUNCT My opponent claims she hasn't committed this particular logical fallacy, and she is absolutely wrong. She has on multiple occasions stated that video game doesn't significantly contribute to real world violence because poverty does or because videogames cause aggression not violence. What she doesn't realize is that every statement she made could be true and it wouldn't show that violence in videogames doesn't contribute to real world violence. Remember pro has a certain amount of burden to show that videogames in fact do not contribute to real world violence. She hasn't met it. Revisit her arguments. They all make use of the logical fallacy I've mentioned. some arguments from pro; In round 2 pro asks "What really causes violence in teens? ". She answers this by saying serious crimes and aggression does. The truth is this doesn't rule out violence in videogames being a significant factor. This is her first real argument and is entirely affirming the adjunct. The 2nd argument in round 2 discusses a chart which she admits after posting it means absolutely nothing. her 3rd and final argument discusses " Video game's effect". summed up she says that people play video games to release aggression and also that people who love violence may be attracted to them. This is yet another case of Affirming the Adjunct. Just because violent people are attracted to them (which she hasn't proven) and they help release aggression doesn't mean that they don't significantly contribute to real world violence. These are her opening arguments. This is the foundation for her entire case. Her case is a chart she admits doesn't mean anything and 2 arguments affirming the adjunct. She has some BOP in this debate and she has came nowhere near meeting it. NOT BORN TO KILL My opponent misses the point with the government training. I'll take this point by point. PRO-"The first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions. " My opponent essentially drops this argument. " I never dropped this argument at all. I attacked it head on. Go ahead to the last round and reread what I said. The differences made in training to up kill rates was a replacement of circle targets with human looking ones. Not only in the shooting range, but also the ones that pop up in simulations. Also video games that soldiers participate in to simulate killing. This is science at it's best, in practice. A bunch of people noticed a problem. The problem was a huge amount of soldiers not killing in battle or police officers not taking out a suspect who is an imminent threat. After seeing the problem, they came up with a hypothesis that if true could help. hypothesis- Simulating killing humans will desensitize people and make them more likely to kill. test- This hypothesis was tested out by replacing shooting range targets with human shaped targets and the popup targets in simulations with human looking pop up targets. Also some videogames were added in. repeat- This test was repeated with several government organizations and proved successful. That is the scientific method and the scientific method is common knowledge so I won't cite it. The scientific method has proven that simulating violence causes people to be more likely to act on violence. Videogames simulate violence. Those simulated experiences desensitize people to violence and makes it more likely that they'll commit acts of violence. " The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting. " This is a new argument and should be completely disregarded, but I will briefly touch on it. My studies have shown that people in the civil war weren't even firing their weapons but only pretending. I can buy that point shooting will increase accuracy in close combat situations, but it isn't increasing the percentage of people pulling the trigger. DESENSITIZE ME "My opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. " Yes, and I urge voters took look at the prior round to see those flaws. None of them have been addressed. "1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button. " It wasn't the competition that caused it. There was a close to an even number on each side. Half being avid violent video game players. Half not being. They all participated in the competition, so it's not a factor. The violent gamers were more willing to dish out physical pain to their opponent. They all participated in the game. If competition was the only factor than significant differences should not have been noticed in their willingness to dish out pain. The study proved that people who play violent videogames have less qualms about hurting you. That part is indisputable and has been shown in several similar studies. "We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games. " I've shown the flaws in your study, and they were ignored. I welcome the voters to take another look at the previous round. The study alone may be brushed away as correlation, but when taken with all the other evidence It serves as some damning evidence in my favor. DR BRUCE What I've tried to get across to the voters as well as my opponent, is that Violent video games contribute significantly to an overall culture of violence. In the famous Kitty Genovese event what is known as the bystander effect took place. Though the concept known as diffusion of responsibility certainly played a factor it wasn't the only factor. As Dr. Bruce mentions in the article I cited. Growing up in rough urban environments can cause desensitization, just like videogames. A lot of people just didn't give a damnn if that girl was being murdered outside their windows. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't really upheld her BOP in this debate. She is attacking my arguments but not doing enough to defend her own. I should win this debate, because I've proved that violent videogames have increased state violence. I should win, because I've shown it increases not only the likelihood somebody will engage in violence, but also that it contributes to a culture of violence. My opponent has largely ignored my arguments concerning the overall culture of violence and psychopathy. For all the reasons mentioned.

14

59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00001-000

Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

There's no such thing as being born GAY! First and for most before I start this argument I will state that I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine. It is not rocket science but any information I use can be searched and confirmed on your own time. First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians. You stated verbatim that "The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation," yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY. On the same note as stated in Wikipedia testosterone is a steroid hormone not a sexual orientation hormone and it plays a key role in males in the development of their reproductive organs as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass, and the growth of body hair. Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being. It is our natural affinity to constantly go through hormonal changes all throughout life so why would something that is permanently innate in human development "SUDDENLY" have an affect on sexual orientation even if it happens prematurely during birth? Also on Wikipedia nowhere does it say TESTOSTERONE has "ANYTHING" to do with gender attraction nor in Human Biology which I took in college. The course covers over several chapters of detailed research and scientific information on different hormones, their effects on the body, and what they mean to our anatomy but there is not ONE reputable source that definitively confirms and proves without a doubt your claims about Testosterone having anything to do with sexual orientation; it is all speculation and not fact. Then you said, "The developing MALE FETUS receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation." So I guess only males are born GAY??? And females get to choose... yes I see your logic! Second I love hypocrisy in debate it's great because I love how you said "In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable," then you said "Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed." How is this statement any different from my pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy? But I will get back to that later in the argument now is not the time lol! I want to address the fact that you said a study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable... how so? I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. You also stated verbatim that... "A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth." "Androstenedione" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. Second Androstenedione was manufactured as a dietary supplement, often called andro for short. Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s by record-breaking sluggers like Mark McGwire. The International Olympic Committee in 1997 banned Androstenedione and placed it under the category of "androgenic-anabolic steroids" and for this reason it is banned by MLB, the NFL, USOC, NCA, and by the NBA. If Androstenedione has the ability to "prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain," as you've stated then why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!! Which was almost 20 years ago! So his research is null-and-void and means nothing because everything he "THOUGHT" he proved has yet to come to fruition! His so-called GAY discovery Androstenedione which was banned 2 years AFTER his research has not had the effect that he claimed it has on MALES and almost 20 years later and counting no athlete who took Androstenedione on a regular basis as a supplement has yet to experience changes in their sexual orientation. You also stated that sexual orientation was in-grained at birth yet you told me in the last argument that you cannot prove that someone who was GAY actually turned straight... that statement is a contradiction yet people do it all the time and YOU KNOW IT! In-grained my AZZ! I've had friends who were GAY and turned STRAIGHT and when asked about their decision to become heterosexual they said at one point they were attracted to the same gender and now they're JUST NOT!! I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since! People change their sexual preference all the time not to mention I CHOSE my sex partners thus choosing my orientation and was not in-grained with it. It is a personal choice just as simple as one day wanting Cheese cake and the next day Apple Pie! Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won so I will conclude this round by replying with a rebuttal to a statement that you made when you said... "It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist." My response to that is no it is not unreasonable because the basis of my argument is that there is no such thing as people being born gay... it is a personal choice! I am not going into a different direction by naming people that live these other various lifestyles because this has everything to do with my argument because being GAY is ALSO a lifestyle and it is a lifestyle choice. And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!

39

4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00004-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]"In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts." [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald's Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. "In 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry." [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. "The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

40

5d677f8e-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

We should redo the death penalty. QUESTION: With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions? My opponent offers a new system.I think it is problematic: 1.Juries are not always right, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still up to opinion. If I think you did something, that's beyond my reasonable doubt. One person might say "Guilty!" and another might say "Not guilty!" Both feel like they know the answer. This shows that beyond a reasonable doubt is quite subjective. 2.The death penalty is biased against black people. "The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black." https://www.commondreams.org... Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit: "African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in "group exonerations." We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes. I. Murder : Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people." http://www.law.umich.edu... Furthermore: "Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable, yet between 1973 and 2004 in the US, 118 prisoners who had been sentenced to death were later released on grounds of innocence [8]. Of 197 convictions in the US that were subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence, 14 were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row [9]. Racial bias in sentencing likely accounts for much of this error; more than half of the exonerees were African Americans, and the rate of death sentences in the US among those convicted of killing a white victim is considerably higher than for murderers of blacks. Given this potential for fatal error, how can any objective person support the death penalty, which allows for no correction? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... If there is even a small possibility that someone innocent could die, we should not use such a system. 3.It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Common Dreams: "The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades." https://www.commondreams.org... Furthermore: "According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel... ...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole." https://www.forbes.com...... Death penalty = more $$ 4.Lethal injections are not humane. There is evidence that people feel pain as they are dying. One specific example is the botched execution in Oklahoma. "The current article by Koniaris and colleagues gives further cause for concern by questioning whether, even if "perfectly" administered, the protocols would achieve their stated aim of causing death without inflicting inhumane punishment... These lethal injection protocols use the barbiturate thiopental (intended to sedate and to suppress breathing), the neuromuscular blocker pancuronium (which paralyzes, causing respiratory arrest but also preventing agonal movements that might indicate suffering), and the electrolyte potassium (intended to cause cardiac arrest). Such protocols are intended to provide redundancy, such that each drug is given at a dose that would by itself cause death. However, in analyzing data from actual executions, Koniaris and colleagues report that thiopental and potassium do not consistently result in death. In fact, individuals undergoing execution have continued to breathe after the injection of thiopental, and their hearts have continued to beat following injection of potassium; in these cases, the authors conclude, it is quite likely that those being executed have experienced asphyxiation while conscious and unable to move, and possibly an intense burning pain throughout the body from the potassium injection." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 1 & 2: No, it won"t. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty requires a long trial. Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting. ADeciding to use the death penalty in a case can cost more than jailing the person. 3, 4, & 5: The incidents you specify are horrendous but that doesn"t make the death penalty O.K. This is utter hypocrisy. How can we say "Don"t murder!" and then say "But we"re going to murder you." "6" Stepping in means jailing. It means cutting people off from society temporarily or permanently should the need arise. NOT murder. "7" That sort of thinking is abhorrent. Yes, they"re evil, but who are we to decide what to do with somebody else"s life? I"d rather nobody died but at the end of the day, if the person wanted to die they could do it themselves"they certainly don"t need the state. Saying we have the right to kill ANYBODY is absurd. "8" Are you saying this is population control? Murder is not the way we control population. "9" Alright, if you"re going to bring religion into this"fine. 1.The Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy quotes are from the Old Testament. Back then, times were very different. If you stole, they cut your hand off. This is because people believed harsh punishments deterred crime. Then Jesus came and he preached forgiveness. Your Matthew quote is taken out of context. If you read the whole thing it says: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Jesus says that we should love each other, not hate. He said don't do "An Eye for an Eye", instead we need to forgive. The Bible seems to understand that murder is not okay. How did they get it so right? 2.Bible says thou shalt not kill so how is murdering people acceptable by Christian standards? We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there?

26

259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00014-000

Do standardized tests improve education?

Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance Most tests were designed in an earlier era when far fewer students took them. The large number of students who now take tests like the SATs results in a situation in which the scoring scale magnifies small differences in performance into large differences in scores. Two questions wrong out of 80 on the math section of the SAT may well produce a score of 760 while three questions wrong will result in a 720. 40 points can mean difference between admission and rejection for many candidates, while telling us nothing about the different abilities of the students involved. Indeed on average for 88% of applicants their SAT score will predict their final college grade rank no more accurately than a pair of dice.[1] [1] Elert, Glenn, 'The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?', 5 May 1992, http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/sat.shtml