Datasets:

inpars

/

fewshot-examples

like 1

Follow

InPars 3

38

799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;

40

62cd9e69-2019-04-18T17:43:54Z-00004-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

death penalty should be abolish I believe the death penalty is good because what are jails going to do, just hold onto criminals in the hopes that they don't escape? Some of these people are serial killers, and shouldn't be allowed to live.

46

784aea60-2019-04-18T17:34:12Z-00005-000

Should net neutrality be restored?

Team America Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka Derka

49

b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00079-000

Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.

49

e0a73828-2019-04-18T19:15:34Z-00001-000

Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

Schools mandatory drug tests How do you know by "getting rid" of this problem, a new one will not spring up in its place? You talk about the children's future and how we have to protect it, that it is our duty. There are numerous things besides drugs (violence, family issues, teen pregnancy, etc.) that could run their futures off course. Who's to say that drugs are the things to focus on? Why out of all of this do we choose drugs? Is there not a better way to address these problems facing or children without turning them all into criminals. We are not giving them a chance (or support) to become something if at the first moment of doubt we accuse them of the worst. No parent wants to acknowledge that their children are using drugs but it is a reality these days. Why is it the schools problem to solve this? The parents should become more proactive; take more responsibility for not watching after their kids and protecting their futures. If anyone should want a kid to prosper, it should be his/her own parent. We should leave the punishing and drug testing up to the parents and leave the education up to the schools. The money that would go towards this testing could be used in better ways. Schools always need new technologies and books, and if you want to keep kids off the street, invest in some after school programs that are educational and fun.

43

824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00000-000

Should bottled water be banned?

Bottled water should be banned Extend arguments. (I really don't know what else to add without repeating the same thing over and over again.

8

81e767ea-2019-04-18T13:52:10Z-00005-000

Should abortion be legal?

abortion abortion should be legal

23

9386eb47-2019-04-18T15:17:21Z-00004-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia Euthanasia should be legal. Any person who does not feel like their life is worth it should be able to end it. Since everyone isn"t strong enough to do it themselves, they should be able to get it done for them. Why should the government have the right to choose it for us? We have rights. Some people say this isn"t a black and white case but I believe it is. Why should the person not have the opportunity to choose? What it you opinion?

9

38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00003-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

School uniforms should be required Con argues that "the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms." Actually, the government can pass a law to require it if they chose. However, the operative notion for this debate is "should." the question here is only whether or not it is a good idea. I would leave it up to local school boards to accept the idea. However, if con thinks that implementation is a fundamental barrier, then we can amend the Constitution to allow the mandate. 1) I too would not have liked to have been forced to wear a uniform in high school, and I agree that many students would not like it. However, many students do not like to be forced to attend school at all, or to learn math or science or reading, or to do homework. Nonetheless, all those things are imposed for the sake of education. Con argues "helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism." Among the things that students can do to help each other succeed in education are: provide upper class mentoring of students in lower grades, minimize the social pressure to goof off rather than study, value the debate team along with the basketball team (well, maybe that is a bit much to ask for, but you get the idea), provide peer encouragement to "do your best", and provide a respectful participatory class environment. Con offers no evidence that discipline is unimportant for general education, or that creativity is suppressed in general by having uniforms. Maturity is often defined as "accepting postponement of the gratification of wants." That means learning to accept discipline and to impose self-discipline. Therefore, these are valid educational goals. Now, I agree the discipline thing can be overdone, but I cannot see any argument that American schools are now over-disciplined. We should move in that direction. 2) Con argues "surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another." Yes, students can find other ways to misbehave, but that doesn't mean uniforms won't help. Having laws against bank robbery does not prevent bank robbery, but the laws help. I have no problem with students changing out of uniforms when they are not in class, in fact I think that helps reinforce the concept that there is a focused "education mode" and a "non-education" mode. Compare it to judges wearing robes. It helps the judge maintain a judicial attitude, and it helps participants afford respect to the judge in his judicial role. If the judge had on a comfy jogging suit and sneakers in the courtroom, we would rightly be concerned that he was not focused on justice. It would be counterproductive if judges wore their robes all the time; similarly, uniforms should be tied to the learning environment. 3) Con argues, "Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape?" Actually, Con previously argued social pressure would do so, "it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group..." That would be a significant improvement over competition through expensive fashion fads. The larger point, however, is that the best a school can do is teach; it cannot guarantee that each person will learn. The argument for teaching is that many will learn, even though some do not. 4) I argued, "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con argued again that students may find other ways to misbehave. Again, that is not grounds for failing to do the best job of teaching possible. 5) con gave no reasons of evidence to support his contention that "Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment." He discounted the Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong examples to the contrary on the grounds that there were many other differences in the school systems other than uniforms. I granted those many differences at the outset, however, the common theme in all of the differences is that there is more strict environment, not a less strict environment. I have not claimed that uniforms were the only factor or that adopting uniforms would perform miracles. The contention is solely that they move in the direction of having more focused educational environment, and that would improve academic achievement. the notion that students are less likely to want to learn in a focused environment is clear contradicted by the evidence. 6) Con previously argued that students would immediately change out their uniforms the minute school ended. If there is a problem, that's a good solution. Note that there is larger problem with students wearing gang colors or clothing styles that provoke violence. there are cases of students being attacked because they unknowingly wore gang colors. Uniforms solve that problem. 7) There is no reason why uniforms need be uncomfortable. I allowed that parents and administrators should adapt to local circumstances. Fairbanks will be different from Key West. 8) Teachers should do nothing to enforce uniform requirements. That is a job for the school administration. Increased discipline helps teachers. Classes in Japan and elsewhere are much larger than in the US, yet they deliver better education. This is only possible because there are fewer behavior problems. 9) Con asks for additional evidence, while providing no counter-evidence of his own. The largest and most prominent example of a school uniform policy experiment in the United States is that of the Long Beach Unified School District, the third largest school district in California having 97,000 students in 90 public school programs, with 46 different languages spoken by local students: "The quantitative outcomes of the policy have been remarkable. Crime report summaries are now available for the five-year post-uniform policy period and reflect that school crime overall has dropped approximately 86%, even though K-8 student enrollment increased 14%. The five categories of school crime where comparisons can be made between 1993 levels and 1999 levels are as follows: (a) sex offenses down 93% (from 57 to 4 offenses); (b) robbery/extortion down 85% (from 34 to 5 cases); (c) selling or using chemical substances down 48% (from 71 to 37 cases); (d) weapons or look-a-likes down 75% (from 145 to 36 cases); and (e) dangerous devices down 96% (from 46 to 2 cases; LBUSD, 1999). ... Analysis of attendance figures has also provided interesting outcomes for the uniform initiative. In the fourth year that school uniforms have been required in K-8 grades, the percent of actual attendance reached almost 95%, noted as the highest point in the 18 years that the district has maintained statistics. Middle schools also registered comparable improvements in student attendance reaching almost 95% (LBUSD, 2002)." http://findarticles.com... The city of Baltimore provides another major experiment with positive results: "Eddie Scott, principal at Meade Middle on Fort Meade, tells the Baltimore Sun's writer, Anica Butler, "There's research that shows a correlation between appropriate dress and academic performance." Students will not be distracted with who is wearing what brand of jeans, shoes or shirts. Students can focus on learning which is why they are there." http://educationalissues.suite101.com... In addition to the experience of foreign countries, there are also the evidence of private and and parochial schools that generally require uniforms and achieve better performance. The policies work most effectively when parents support them, as in Long Beach and Baltimore, and there are examples when other factors overwhelm the effect of having uniforms. Requiring uniforms is a step in the right direction.

10

aa35345b-2019-04-18T15:02:32Z-00001-000

Should any vaccines be required for children?

Vaccines cause brain damage and autism. A. History In the 1960's an autistic child was diagnosed in 1 out of every 5,000 children. Today the number is 1 in 50. This is an epidemic that needs too be made priority in our society. Yet it does not seem like this problem is being taken seriously. There is no cure, and nobody knows what causes it. And parents and people who claim there is a link too vaccines are vilified. Why does the government and the media keep telling us what it is not causing autism? During the past quarter century, the CDC and AAP increased the numbers of vaccinations doctors are told to give American children from 23 doses of 7 vaccines to 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age five. Although today almost all childhood vaccines contain only trace amounts of mercury or never contained mercury preservatives, such as polio, pneumococcal, hepatitis A and live virus MMR, chicken pox and rotavirus vaccines, parents around the nation continue to report that their children are regressing physically, mentally and emotionally following receipt of multiple vaccines. These parents report their children are becoming chronically ill and disabled, suffering with autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma, diabetes, intestinal bowel disorders and other brain and immune system dysfunction. How many more children will be hurt before government, industry and paediatricians open their eyes and see what too much vaccination has done to our children? More than 3.5 million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder. (Buescher et al., 2014) Prevalence of autism in U.S. children increased by 119.4 percent from 2000 (1 in 150) to 2010 (1 in 68). (CDC, 2014) Autism is the fastest-growing developmental disability. (CDC, 2008) Prevalence has increased by 6-15 percent each year from 2002 to 2010. (Based on biennial numbers from the CDC) http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.autism-society.org... The theory of vaccines causing autism comes from a source that should be trusted, parents. It was not evil Dr. Wakefield, or a Lawyer looking for money. The theory was born because parents with autistic children had the same story. They did not conspire or plan too bring down big pharm. They simply wanted to know why their children who were developing normally before their MMR shot were now sick and autistic. My opponent points too a CDC study that says there is no link between vaccines and autism. Where have I heard that before? No link? Ah yes, the CDC told the public that there was no link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. They were backing an industry that made billions of dollars a year. Sound familiar? http://www.thefreelibrary.com... The Truth Behind the Tobacco Industry Cover-Up.-a019030080 It is funny how history repeats itself. Another whistle blower has surfaced. "William W. Thompson, PhD, Senior Scientist with the CDC has stepped forward and admitted the 2004 paper entitled "Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta," which has been used repeatedly by the CDC to deny the MMR-autism connection, was a fraud." "Dr. Thompson has admitted the 340% increase in boys receiving the MMR vaccine "on time," as opposed to delayed, was buried by himself, Dr. DeStefano, Dr. Bhasin, Dr. Yeargin-Allsopp, and Dr. Boyle. Dr. Thompson first called and spoke with Dr. Brian Hooker, who then revealed the information to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the Autism Media Channel." The video link I have added tells the story of deception. https://vimeo.com... 1 in 50 children are diagnosed with autism and the CDC is covering up evidence that shows the link that Dr. Wakefield had found. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created when big pharm lobbied the government too create a program where parents could not sue them when vaccines damaged their children. The Pharmaceutical lobby gives more money to government than any other lobby group. http://www.hrsa.gov... When a child is injured by vaccines, the family can not sue, they must go too the vaccine vourt to request compensation. Over 2.5 billion dollars in compensation has been handed out by the program. If vaccines were not damaging children, why would they be handing out over 2.5 billion in compensation? In Italy, you can sue the vaccine companies. A recent ruling found that vaccines do cause autism and the family was awarded compensation. In the USA people call you a nut for claiming a link. Doctors that have done honest research are pushed out of the system and lose their careers. But in Italy, vaccines cause autism. Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism Valentino Bocca was given an MMR shot in 2004, at the age of 15 months. According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. Within days he was no longer able to put a spoon to his mouth, and he spent nights crying in pain. His parents immediately suspected the vaccination, but were told this was "impossible." Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later. In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was at fault. As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy recently awarded the Bocca family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that Valentino "has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR)i." According to a featured article in the UK newspaper, The Independentii, about 100 similar cases are now being examined by Italian lawyers, and more cases may be brought to court. "Luca Ventaloro the family lawyer, said yesterday: "This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions." The number of autism cases has risen sharply since the 1970s, with one in 64 British children affected," The Independent reportsiii . Why is US Media in Black-Out on this Story? It's well worth mentioning that this story has yet to be addressed in the US media... The Daily Mail was the first paper in the UK to talk about it on June 15iv. The Independent was the second to print an article, on June 17. The Daily Mail was the most substantive of the two. Their version included the following statements: "Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family... said it was 'conclusively established' that Valentino had suffered from an 'autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay' and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab. Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: 'This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino. 'It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.' So we know that the CDC, the media, big pharm, the government, and the medical profession are lying to the public. 2.5 billion in compensation, Italian court rulings, CDC scientists blowing the whistle, and thousands of parents story's show us that vaccines cause autism. http://www.cdc.gov... http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.hrsa.gov... http://www.autism-society.org...

27

557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00005-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished

5

dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00000-000

Should social security be privatized?

Social security should be privatized. "So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part." Nice try Snoopy, but you missed the point of the quote altogether. Webster's point was action in response to conviction or passion doesn't always yield the desired result (Iraq is a good example of this). Your conviction to destroy social security without much of a real understanding of the impact and cost of such a transition proves Daniel Webster's point. One such example is the concept of disability, one area that social security provides for. In your zeal to abandon this government program, millions of disabled citizens would lose their disability benefits. Now, I'm sure if given the choice to contemplate that fate, you would likely argue for some revision to our efforts to abandon social security to at least make sure these folks didn't lose what is likely a lifeline of income for them. The cost element still hasn't been resolved, though I do realize that you probably care little about this vs. obtaining the result you desire. I do care, as we are already saddling future generations with mountains of debt under this current administration, adding 4-11 trillion more would exacerbate the situation far greater. As for Chile, some of your analysis is correct, but it proves my point when it comes to risk for our citizens. While I agree that the Federal government isn't independent of market performance, it is far more so than the average private account. Most of social security is invested in government bonds, which even today are probably the safest investment that can be made (less so if we continue our debt patterns, which feeds my argument above). I know you've asked for my "fixes" to social security, but I don't think that is germane to the topic, nor do we have time to address it given that this is the last round. However, for the sake of clarification, two of my fixes would lie in raising the cap on current tax levels as well as raising the cap on investment levels so that the trust fund could perform better in periods of economic growth. What you haven't answered that is germane to this topic is how we achieve such a transition. I've highlighted the costs, to which your only answer is they will get worse. That doesn't improve the case for this drastic of a move. The transition to the private system you advocate would be violent, and economically difficult to achieve. I completely agree that people need to change their approach to retirement. Social security should become a much smaller portion of their retirement portfolio, as FDR has originally designed (it was only supposed to be a supplement for poor retirees). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as you propose, is far too risky in todays economic climate, especially with the escalating costs of health care for retirees. Privatization may be an option at some point, but today we need to stabilize the patient before we're willing to get rid of it altogether. Too many people would suffer otherwise.

28

d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00006-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Prostitution should be Legal Good Luck! You may have the first turn to argue.

3

a4067850-2019-04-18T18:38:07Z-00004-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Once and for all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a conspiracy There are far too many things that are suspicious about 9/11 to have been simply orchestrated by a terrorist organization. Discrepancies include, 1.) Inside traders and Put Options Put options are bets on if a stock will go down. Right before 9/11 was carried out, massive amounts of put options were used. For example, United Airlines. The Thursday before the attack, 2,000 contracts betting the stock would go down were purchased, which is 90x the amount usually purchased in three weeks. That being said, when factoring that it took place on one day, by multiplying 21 by 90, that 1890x the amount usually purchased in one day. After the attack, when the stock markets reopened again, the price of United Stock dropped, while the price of the contracts soared. To be specific, before the attack, the contracts were worth $180,000. After the attack, the value jumped to 2.4 million. Almost the exact same thing happened to American Airlines. A $337,000 trade on Monday jumped to 1.8 million. There was also an extraordinarily high amount of bets against Morgan Stanley and Marsh & McLennan, two of the World Trade Center's biggest tenants. If it was a coincidence, as attested by Antonio Mora of ABC, "This would be of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if this was a coincidence." 2.) The Pentagon Crash The crash site at the Pentagon was 65 x 73 ft. And the damage was far too little to have been caused by the massive jet. And how can a plane that can bring down the World Trade Center fail to singe a book, destroy a computer, or burn a desk? That, along with the fact that the area of the Pentagon that was hit was vacant due to renovations is highly suspicious. 3.) Faked Bin Laden Tapes The tape released of Bin Laden confessing to 9/11 is of very poor quality, and contradicts what the FBI maintains about Osama. One, the FBI says that he is left-handed, while in the tape, he writes with his right hand. Furthermore, the Bin Laden in the tape, even in the poor quality, can be seen to look nothing like the pictures released of Bin Laden. Furthermore, also according to the FBI, "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." Instrestingly, despite the fact that he is the symbol of 9/11, our FBI doesn't specify him being wanted for 9/11. 4.) Other Inconsistencies Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger? Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we still believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all? Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance? Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked planes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11? Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY, and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them? Why did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns. Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event. Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month. How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street? Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released? Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found. http://newsone.com... http://tvnewslies.org... http://www.fbi.gov...

22

402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00058-000

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

Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop. Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. "Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception."

46

5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00001-000

Should net neutrality be restored?

Net Neutrality I enjoyed it. I hope you did as well.

48

6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00005-000

Should the voting age be lowered?

Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today's debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered "proficient" in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): "The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they'd already done the same." What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends'? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in "digital gerrymandering," where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen's ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)

40

eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00002-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

the death penalty should be allowed Extend arguments. I hope that Pro returns to the site, and that my harsh critisisms did not deter her from the debate.

9

e185aed6-2019-04-18T12:33:18Z-00002-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

School uniforms should be banned Even if students can wear hair accessories or bracelets, it is always limited. There are just a few colours that are allowed and in most schools, hair accessories and bracelets are allowed only for girls, because it will be estrange seeing a boy with hair accessories, so boys have not a freedom to use more accessories, just the uniform. I know students can join a club with other clothing, but not everyone from the school will see them, just the people that are joined to the club will be available to see them, plus there are some clubs in which students have to wear specific dresses, for example: a sports' club, because there are teams so there is a big probability for teams to be forced to wear an specific T-shirt. Clothes not only help to express personality, they help to express style. There is a probability that someone tells is/her style to other people and that people don't understand really well what he/she is trying to say, but if they see them, it will be much easier for the other person to explain it. The dress code may be stabilised by the school with some limits like this: Can not wear flip-flops, crocs or open shoes, only closed shoes For hot weather: Short sleeve shirts may be worn, as long as the sleeve is 5cm below the arm. If shorts are to be worn that are not so short (they should be at least halfway up the leg) For cold weather: You can bring non-exaggerated and discreet coats. If you are going to bring jackets or bags, maximum two Please dress well, that the colors you choose combine For girls: dresses or skirts can not be more than 3 fingers above the knees It is not acceptable to wear shoes like flip-flops (all inside the shoe) On days when there is sport class, students can only wear weatshirts or sportswear I know parents always remember students by something, but what if the school joins all the classes are in the same place? There will be every people of the school and like this your parents will have to go between people just to find you. Some kids don't carry their cell phone for schools. In other schools it is only allowed in secondary. For example in my school, every grade has to wait his/her parents in the same place, all the classes are joined at the same point, so there is not an specific meeting point stabilised between parents and students, everyone has the same meeting point as the others. If students don't know what to choose for wearing, parents can help them. If an student don't find his/her after trying an smaller and a bigger size, then the student will be forced to buy a smaller or bigger size, which is not correct. People want to see their best image and as they just see that they are wearing a uniform every day, they are not going to think that their image is the best. Yes, there are other ways for increasing self-esteem, but for most of the people, their image is a very important aspect. I know bullying never stops, it is another problem, but it can be reduced without school uniforms. I think there will be more rivalry with school uniforms because it will be easier for others to know the school you are from and make fun of your school uniform. Also, many uniforms are ugly for students and they are forced to wear them. There are quotes against uniforms used now by experts that investigate school uniforms' facts, like this one: ""the uniform is that which we do not choose, that which is assigned to us; it is the certitude of the universal against the precariousness of the individual. When the values that were once so solid come under challenge and withdraw, heads bowed, he who cannot live without them (without fidelity, family, country, discipline, without love) buttons himself up in the universality of his uniform as if that uniform were the last shred of transcendence that could protect him against the cold of a future in which there will be nothing left to respect" R13; Milan Kundera, The Art of the Novel School uniforms will not save class time, because teachers also check the uniform code. Schools should have the first 15 minutes of tutor, where teachers check the dress code of students. The purpose of schools is educating, not educating with force conditions, rather educating will not be easy with rules that are not necessary. Students can feel that they make part of the school in different ways, not only with the uniform: (with the school programs, teachers, way of learning, systems, activities and many other things) all schools have uniqueness in something, so uniforms are not necessary for students to feel that they make part of the school. Teachers can not only be impressed with school uniform presentation, they can also be impressed by seeing how well kids are dressing and all the fashion the are using. Note: Thank you opponent for your note, as I said I have not a good experience in debates so I am surprised of you writing me that note. Good luck again! You are also a very good debater, it took me time to attack your arguments, but as I join to more debates it would be easier for me, I have to add that my first language is Spanish, so I think you can suppose this is a real challenge for me. I think we are having a very good and close debate! http://studymoose.com... http://www.goodreads.com...

34

58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00005-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.

42

aff70ee6-2019-04-18T19:22:48Z-00009-000

Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

College Football D-I should have a Play-off System The BCS: The Bull Sh*t Championship. Look at any sport, where do computers and peoples opinions play any factor in who wins a championship? The best team is decided on the field, and through a play-off. Look at the MLB, MLL, MLS, NBA, and NHL they all have play-off systems. The NHL, MLB, and NBA all even have play-off systems for their minor leagues teams (NFL, MLL, and MLS don't have minor leagues). Each sports uses their own system, but they all work and at the end no one can doubt that the team that survived the test of the play-offs is not truly the Champion. The BCS has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, because of all the hype and prestige that college football gets: The championship is rigged. When the Magic where facing the Cav's in the Eastern Confrence Finals, everyone wanted to see Kobe/Lebron, Stan Van Gundy (The Magic Coach) angerly replied to reporters on the question of everyone wanting to see those 2 in the finals, "This isn't the BCS where people get to vote [on] who gets to play. This is real sports where it's decided on the court." But WAIT, these are just kids where talking about�€ï¿½poor little college althetes who could in no way stand the tests or pressure of a play-off system. BS, look at NCAA College Football FBS-Subdivision, NCAA College Football D-II, NCAA College Football D-III, NCAAB (D-I, D-II, D-III), NCAABW (D-I, D-II, D-III), College Soccer (Men's and Women's), College Volleyball (Men and Women's), College Baseball, College Softball, College Hockey (Men and Women's), College Lacrosse, and even College Water Polo. Let's even look below college, in all division of High School football in every state of America, and Washington D. C., High School football teams span the rigiourous test of a play-off system to win a state championship (When my high school team won state last year we played in 6 play-off games), also High School Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball, and Softball teams all compete in play-offs. When everyone at every level, everywhere is competing in a play-off what's stopping D-I college football? The Plan: Have one 16-team play-off system seed 1 through 16. The winners of each 11 conferences getting an automatic bid (The champion of each conference) and 5 at large bids to be determined by a committee similar to the basketball selection committee for the NCAA Basketball Tournaments. The System would see games staged the week after the conclusion of the regular season with the 1 vs. 16 seed, 2 vs. 15 seed and so on. The tournament would be standarded bracketed with the one seed hitting either the 8 or the 9th seed in the second round. The first two round would be played with the lower seed having the home field advantage, where the semi's and final's would be held at neutral sites (Most likely the Rose, Orange, and Fiesta bowl locations). [Please, keep in mind this is only the most ideal and competative format. Their are dozens of other possibilities for a play-off system, I am only suggesting one to fall back on in this debate. Simply because any voters or my challenger disagree with the system I am proposing doesn't mean you should vote against me. You have to see the logic of my analysis based on why we need a play-off system, not which one is perfect.] Contention #1- Stuck on an Outdated Bowl System Dan Wetzel may have said it best, when he stated, "Ignore outdated bowls games. BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports." Basically the bowl system works like this: Copurrate sponsors set up and run bowls, make huge profits on advertising and sales while dishing some money to the teams participating. I have nothing against using bowl games to celebrate a winning season for a college football team, if anything it's a good reward for having a successful season, But the problem resides in the fact that no one is willing to think outside of the Bowls for any practical solution. The Rose Bowl, and Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl hold so much history in college football to let them slip the way side would just be terrible. Not when the real solution is better. As far as bowl games are concerned: They can remain. As long as teams are eligible and willing to participate in then why not host them? But this must be done con-current with a play-off where the best teams compete against each other to produce a champion. Contention #2- The Season Would be TOOOOOO Long Again, I really want to talk to the people that feed America this bull. What if I could tell you that with in a college football play-off the season would be shorter, fewer teams would have to play/practice as long, and thus midigate the risk of injury? Ok, so eight teams would play and extra game, four two, and two three. A relatively small price to pay: a total of seven extra games for over a hundred schools in D-I. However, the play-off system could have some sense about it, and start the week after the conclusion of the regular season: taking away the month of practicing and extra workouts coach put their players through because they are playing in a bowl game Jan. 7th when the season ended the first weekend in December. Also conferences, like the Big Ten would not have to play with the severe handi-cap of taking almost 2 months off before playing in a BCS game just because they finished their seasons earlier due to more compact scheduling. People argue that to many kids would miss class (and final) with this 'longer' season: 1) I just shortened it 2) The real toll on students is preparing for the games, if the have games after exams they still have to practice before and during exams. 3)No system, even the current bowl one, can work around every schools exam schedule. If I still haven't convincied you look at this: Due to the way college football runs its clock, there are about 10 percent more plays in a college game than a pro one (135 to 122), which means they're already playing an extra game, game and a half now. Change the clock timing, and boom you shave the number of games being played by almost 50 across D-I, and then you add 7 extra. That saves 43 games players could get injured in a season plus adds a play-off, nice. Contention #3- College Football Would Be Fair How would you like to play in a league, where at the beginning of the season the coach sits your whole team down and says, "Look guys, I don't care if we blow everyone out by 50 points, Go Undefeated, and winn the MAC. The Truth is we can't win a championship this year, because we don't have a �€˜history' of being good." Why even have teams in a league who can't win? You laugh, and say �€˜everyone has a fair shot'. Go bring that up with the people from Utah, the only undefeated team in D-I this year, where is their Championship? Or what about Boise state in '07? Or Utah(again) in '04 (or Auburn in '04)? What happened their? You know what happened, the system is rigged (and Flawed). It is fixed towards the big schools, who will draw the big crowds and get the big rating and consequently make the big bucks for the cooperate sponsor's of the BCS games (Tostitos, FedEx). A play-off system would allow un-bias and fair results by allowing champions of smaller conferences to play with the big boys, and if they lose so what? At least they had their chance, but when they win that would be something else. The magic of the NCAA Basketball tournament resides in the �€˜Cinderella' run of a huge under-dog. Why not allow that in College Football? Furthermore, the BCS fails to account for any senerio where three or more teams go undefeated in the regular season, a play-off would. Quite simply their is only one solution. College football must change over to a play-off system. If they want to keep their credibility, or even pretend they are a 'real' sport. I D-I is so competative. Then prove it, what are they scared of? In America we have a system, one system to determine the champion, the best, and that system is a play-off.

16

bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00001-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

The FDA Does More Harm Than Good I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. "If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that." I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that "these claims indicate that Cheerios� is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be 'used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for 'safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts "…companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company." This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment "would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between 'drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.

20

48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00002-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient. "The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever." A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1) "Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. " �It is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). �As chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets. "Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods." Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.�Flavoring milk �is the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults. To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid. "It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk," said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusions: While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children? Sources: 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.�http://www.ivillage.com... 3.http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4.http://www.facebook.com...

8

7586b441-2019-04-18T17:40:11Z-00001-000

Should abortion be legal?

Abortion should be illegal It appears that my opponent will not make an opening statement. I will post a small argument here.I. Legalized Abortion Reduces CrimeThe crime drop in the 90s was partially because of legalized abortion: "For instance, homicide fell 25.9 percent in high-abortion states between 1985 and 1997 compared to an INCREASE of 4.1 percent in low-abortion states. Panel data estimates confirm the strong negative relationship between lagged abortion and crime. An analysis of arrest rates by age reveal that only arrests of those born after abortion legalization are affected by the law change."[1] Abortion reduces crime rates. II. Legalized Abortion Reduces Women's Deaths "Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health."[2][3][7] Legalized abortion is safer than "backalley" abortions.III. Legalized Abortion Reduces Breast Cancer Risks "In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child).• Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.• Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level)."[4] Legalized abortion reduces the risk of breast cancer when compared to a pregnancy. IV. Legalized Abortion Reduces Mental Illness Rates "The biggest study worldwide of the relationship between termination and mental wellbeing is published and concludes: 'The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy.'"[5] It would be an unwanted pregnancy, not the abortion itself, that would cause mental illness in a woman. Legalized abortion reduces mental illness incidence. V. Abortion Is Not Immoral "Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A fetus resides in a legal and social no-man's land, where rights and personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women."[6] Abortion is not immoral and should not be illegal. Overall, abortion should be legal.Sources [1]: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...[2]: Abortion in Context: United States and Worldwide," Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999. [3]: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...[4]: http://www.cancer.org...[5]: http://www.guardian.co.uk...[6]: http://www.abortionaccess.info...[7]: "Envisioning Life Without Roe: Lessons Without Borders," Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2003.

23

9386df4a-2019-04-18T17:21:32Z-00003-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia Euthanasia should not be made legal. Without pain, without tragedy, without loss, without a yearning for something better, we lose what we are. The main reason as to why we can't though goes further than this. When we see people overcoming hideous amounts of hardships to do something amazing, we celebrate them. By allowing euthanasia we are saying as a world-give up if you like. We should never allow people to give up-it's what keeps us together as people always striving for better.

23

7d51d9aa-2019-04-18T16:21:24Z-00002-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia Should Be Illegal But euthanasia is technically suicide in most cases except that their is a second party involved. Suicide is considered an act of felony in some states. (more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Freedom does not equal signing your own death contract. Freedom of choice means you have the right to choose your death but you cannot tell somebody else to help you with that. (freedom of choice definition: http://wiki.answers.com... )

26

828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00004-000

Do standardized tests improve education?

Standardized testing is a good thing I would first like to state that I feel the issues that plague schools stem from viruses that pollute society in general. In my opinion, these issues cannot be tackled in schools until they are honestly confronted and addressed in society. However, for the purpose of this debate I will attempt to couch an international dynamic within a scholastic paradigm. The issues I allude to include classism, poverty, racism and many other concerns and controversies that are relevant to the effectiveness of standardized testing. I will refer to these topics as they relate to standardized testing during the debate. As I stated in the comments section, standardized testing would be more accurate if schools were standardized. As it stands, schools are basically still separate and unequal. Meaning, many underprivileged schools are expected to achieve the same results as fully funded, avant-garde schools. Can this be done? Yes, on occassion. Should this be expected? No. "As of 2011 48 percent of all public school students were poor* and this year, students of color will account for the majority of public school students for the first time in US history. .. What is surprising about these shifts is that they are not leading to more diverse schools. In fact, the Civil Rights Project has shown that black students are just as segregated today as they were in the late 1960s, when serious enforcement of desegregation plans first began following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. " [1] While it is clear that diversity provides a more enriching scholastic experience, I would like to make it clear that segregation is not the major problem. The main problem is that schools that house underprivileged and/or melaninated children are not provided with the same level of finances, support or resources as schools that house privileged or affluent students. True education should employ more of a nurturing what's within than an instilling from without concept. When I see or hear debates regarding what's best for students the one variable that is usually missing is input from the student's themselves. Standardized testing is not an accurate method of assessing a student's true grasp of the purpose, relevance or potential of the information they have processed. With so much attention paid to teaching to the test, students often receive little to no knowledge of how to apply the information dealt with in the tests in a real world setting. What's Wrong With Standardized Tests? Are standardized tests fair and helpful evaluation tools? Not really. On standardized exams, all test takers answer the same questions under the same conditions, usually in multiple-choice format. Such tests reward quick answers to superficial questions. They do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field. Their use encourages a narrowed curriculum, outdated methods of instruction, and harmful practices such as grade retention and tracking. Are standardized tests objective? The only objective part of most standardized tests is scoring, when done by an accurately programmed machine. Deciding what items to include on the test, how questions are worded, which answers are scored as "correct," how the test is administered, and the uses of exam results are all made by subjective human beings. Are test scores "reliable"? A test is completely reliable if you would get exactly the same results the second time you administered it. All tests have "measurement error. " This means an individual's score may vary significantly from day to day due to testing conditions or the test-taker's mental or emotional state. Scores of young children and scores on sub-sections of tests are particularly unreliable. Do test scores reflect significant differences among people? Not necessarily. The goal of most tests is to sort and rank. To do that, test makers make small differences appear large. Questions most people get right or wrong are removed because they don't help with ranking. Because of measurement error, two people with very different scores on one exam administration might get similar scores on a retest, or vice versa. On the SAT, for example, two students' scores must differ by at least 144 points (out of 1,600) before the test's sponsors are willing to say the students' measured abilities really differ. Don't test-makers remove bias from tests? Most test-makers review items for obvious biases, such as offensive words. But many forms of bias are not superficial. Test-makers also use statistical bias-reduction techniques. However, these cannot detect underlying bias in the test's form or content. As a result, biased cultural assumptions built into the test as a whole often are not removed by test-makers. Do tests reflect current knowledge about how students learn? Not at all. While our understanding of the brain and how people learn and think has progressed enormously, standardized tests have remained the same. Test makers still assume that knowledge can be broken into separate bits and that people learn by absorbing these individual parts. Today, cognitive and developmental psychologists understand that knowledge is not separable bits and that people (including children) learn by connecting what they already know with what they are trying to learn. If they cannot actively make meaning out of what they are doing, they do not learn or remember. Do multiple-choice or short-answer tests measure important student achievement? These kinds of tests are very poor yardsticks of student learning. They are weak measures of the ability to comprehend complex material, write, apply math, understand scientific methods or reasoning, or grasp social science concepts. Nor do they adequately measure thinking skills or assess what people can do on real-world tasks. Are test scores helpful to teachers? Classroom surveys show most teachers do not find scores from standardized tests scores very useful. The tests do not help a teacher understand what to do next in working with a student because they do not indicate how the student learns or thinks. Nor do they measure much of what students should learn. Good evaluation provides useful information to teachers. How has "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) affected the use of standardized tests in the U. S. ?NCLB has led to a huge increase in testing. It requires state testing of every student in grades 3-8 and once in high school, more than twice previous federal mandates. NCLB also led to an explosion of other standardized exams, including "benchmark" tests often administered 3-10 times per year. U. S. students are now the most tested on Earth. What is high-stakes testing? High-stakes tests are used to make important decisions such as student promotion or graduation, granting teacher tenure, or sanctioning schools for poor performance. Twenty-six states now have graduation tests; some states and districts have tests for grade promotion. NCLB attaches sanctions to test results. Even though NCLB has failed to improve schools, policy makers continue to expand high-stakes test uses such as "value-added" teacher evaluation. What happens when tests become high stakes? High-stakes testing often results in a narrow focus on teaching just the tested material (test preparation). Other content in that subject as well as untested subjects such as social studies, art and music are cut back or eliminated. High-stakes testing also produces score inflation: scores go up, but students have not learned more. Their scores are lower even on a different standardized test. This undermines the meaning of test results as well as education. What are other consequences of high-stakes testing? Attaching high stakes to test results increases cheating and other efforts to boost scores without improving educational quality. This can be done by arranging for low-scoring students to be absent on test day or pushing them out of school, often into the prison pipeline. Are there better ways to evaluate student achievement or ability? Yes. Good teacher observation, documentation of student work, and performance-based assessment, all of which involve the direct evaluation of real learning tasks, provide useful material for teachers, parents, and the public. Many nations that do the best in international comparisons, like Finland, use these techniques instead of large-scale standardized testing. [2] Racial bias in standardized testingWhat many people do not know is that the use of standardized tests has its origins in the Eugenics movement, where basic tenets assert that certain races are inferior to others biologically and intellectually. From our 21st century perspective, we can look back in horror, but we have to be clear about the original purpose of standardized tests. The original IQ tests were designed by French psychologist Alfred Binet for benign and limited uses: a) on young children who were not developing "normally"; b) as "general" tools to make "general" decisions, not a precise measurement for precise decisions; and c) to signal when a child needed more help in their intellectual development. Unfortunately in the United States, IQ scores were posited to be fixed and innate, and were promptly used to rank and sort individuals by race and ethnic background. Businesses, government agencies and educational institutions used IQ tests to justify placing certain people into certain jobs and excluding them from others…. [3]This, it is my assertion that standardized testing is not a good thing if the goal is to produce a well rounded student with skills that will make them productive, industrious and independent in a post academic setting. I await a response from my opponent. . http://www.urban.org... [1]. http://www.fairtest.org... [2]. http://parentsacrossamerica.org... [3]

47

933bdbc1-2019-04-18T11:31:43Z-00002-000

Is homework beneficial?

serbia started th ewar serbia is very bad. this guy killed someone meaning serbia as a whole is bad. die die die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to use up all my characters;. DIE DIE DIE. The driver was bad but serbia was worse! DIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badDIE DIE DIE. serbia badvDIE. serbia badvDIE. DIE

35

b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00005-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockefeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, "People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, paediatricians, and psychologists know better." (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller's conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, "It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…" (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime.AggressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certainly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Aggression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough.Violence rates:Here is the most important point of this debate. Logically, if violence in video games significantly contribute to real world violence, violent crime rates would rise as video game sales rise. This, however, is untrue: Now, I don't claim that this decrease is due to video game sales (a lot of other factors could have affected the decline). However, this decrease makes mockery of the idea that video games have legitimately contributed to the rise of violence in society today (5). Video game's effect:Releasing AggressionStudies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes "If you give them video games, they'll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we'd hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There's nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other (6)." The inmates clearly were able to release their aggression in a way that doesn't hurt other people. This can be applied to other people as well. Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids.Enjoyment of ViolenceThis is an important part of the debate. Many people don't become violent because of violence in video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they enjoy violence. In order for con to win this point, he must prove that the violence in video games causes the violence. A simple correlation between violent people and people that play violent video games is not enough.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.goodtherapy.org... (5) Chasing the Dream, "The Economist"(6) http://freakonomics.com...

42

49b078ea-2019-04-18T17:39:26Z-00003-000

Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Hockey should be America's past time. I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.

22

d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000

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

Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut

18

f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00001-000

Should churches remain tax-exempt?

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes This is my response for Round 4, the final round of the debate. I'd like to thank Thett for coming out of retirement to debate this with me. Since this is my final response for the debate, I will not be introducing any new arguments to the debate. I will be mostly responding to what Thett says in R3. Religion is a social good The first point of contention that Thett brings up here is in claiming that churches will have to hire armies of lawyers to pay their taxes. This isn't true, as the only reasons for hiring a tax attorney is for if you are in debt with taxes, issues with tax returns, facing criminal investigation, or are going to US tax court [1]. None of these would likely happen under my plan, thus this argument doesn't work. Next Thett argues for his notion that churches will have to "change their business model" and thus the bottom line of churches will have to shut down. That churches have operated under the model that they don't have to pay taxes and thus altering the model to having to pay taxes will make churches shut down. I find this notion unwarranted because it assumes that churches or church leaders are extremely irresponsible with money. It assumes that church leaders will literally forget that their is a church tax, then spend the entirety of their budget, and then not be able to pay the taxes. The possibility of this happening, realistically, is extremely low. The amount of churches that will actually be affected by this mismanagement of money is so low that I find it silly to see this as a feasible impact for Con's side. Regardless, dividing $26,000 among 50 congregants is $520 per congregant, or around 0.01% of the average income [2]. Given the average giving to church per congregant is $1,038 [3], paying all of the taxes will be no problem. The only impact left on Thett's side for this is the implication of mismanagement of money, which is a slim impact at best.What does "changing their business model" even mean? And what makes having to change it bad? I don't see any negative impact in changing a "model" that would cause churches to close. The link between taxing churches and churches closing doesn't work, since it is unwarranted and proven to be sustainable by congregation members. The only way a church can close is if they cannot pay off expenses (since it isn't for-profit, it's for-religion, profit of a location is irrelevant) and I have shown that congregations will be able to fairly easily. Lastly, Thett calls for me to justify church taxation. This seems strange to call out this late in the debate, but I justify taxing churches through my framework and every argument I have made. By my uncontested framework, if taxing churches is a greater societal good than a harm then taxing churches is justified. That is why taxing churches is justified. Even regardless of that, Thett's quick argument about the government providing roads and police protection ignores the fact that churches also take advantage of police protection and road transportation. Thus, by Thett's own argument churches ought to pay taxes. Economic Benefits Alright, here I messed up big. Thett is right, legitimate operating expenses are tax deductible, did not know that until now. This essentially destroys most of my case, since by my own argument, 71% of income goes to operating expenses while the rest, 29% goes to charity. It isn't exactly realistic that a church would only spend money on two things, and the third thing they spend it on would be taxable. But I said what I said, and since this is the last round I cannot take that back. That means that based on an income tax, the government would be getting a portion of the 0% of taxable profits, or 0$. This means that my income tax part of my case is negated, making the amount of money the government gets through my plan is $7.9 billion through property taxes. The next point of relevance comes when Thett argues that I can't just assume that the money collected in taxes from churches would be donated to charity. Thett argues that it is not realistic to believe that the government would spend the money on charity. Since I am the affirming side I am allowed to put forth a plan in which to affirm the resolution, as long as it affirms the resolution I am allowed to use that plan. My plan, as I stated earlier, is to donate the collected money to charity. This is allowed and will happen under my plan. Church and State Thett responds to my argument by saying that the majority of Americans believe that religion should not play a role in politics because the Pope had to apologize after criticizing Trump. This argument doesn't work, it's an appeal to popularity. Just because the majority of people believe that religion should not play a role in politics doesn't mean that religion shouldn't play a role in politics. Thett further argues that all it takes is one religious endorsement contrary to public good to sway the election and produce a negative result, and thus negative impact. This doesn't work since endorsements are a neutral value. A religious organization could just as easily endorse a candidate for the public good than a candidate against the public good, and thus there is no impact either way here. It is a neutral value. The notion that a government relies on the church for legitimacy makes no sense and is unwarranted. The only way that Thett has proposed that religious organizations retaliate against the government is through getting involved through politics through endorsements, which as I just showed has no case. Thett's entire argument based on separation of church and state relied on the church getting involved in politics through endorsements, which I proved is neutral. Thus Thett's argument here is negated. Conclusion Through my plan $7.9 billion is raised in taxes. Given that $28 billion is used to save 6 million lives, $7.9 billion will be used to save 1.7 million lives. Even if we accept Thett's unwarranted link between churches closing and taxes, and then accept that the link is logically sound, the argument still doesn't work because reduction in people attending church leading to an increase in stress and depression is outweighed by the 1.7 million lives that are saved. In order for Thett's impacts to outweigh mine, about 6 people would have to die per congregation as a result of taxing churches (1.7m/300k.) This is not realistic given Thett's argument, thus I win this debate. Peace and Love [1] https://www.supermoney.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://amiccs.com...

45

46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000

Should the penny stay in circulation?

Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER

38

59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00007-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Marijuana should be legalized Full resolution: "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...

12

16d7ef8d-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00003-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Women Have The Right to Contraceptives Thank you, Con. I. Addressing Counter-Arguments/Rebuttals "Everyone acknowledges that having sex has risks, such as protection breaking, but you should go into the action accepting that it may happen, and willing to accept the consequences. If you were worried about getting pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Everyone knows that condoms break. That doesn't make birth control a 'basic human right,' as Pro stated in Round 1. Keep in mind that this is the terminology that Pro used, as I will be addressing it shortly." Con is essentially stating in the above rebuttal that sex should be strictly procreative; that if the couple knew the risk of pregnancy and didn't want to have a baby, that having sex should not be an option to begin with. This is of course ignoring the kinds of sex a couple may have that are not physically able to procreate. To think of the birth of a child as a "consequence" that couples must deal with is to present the idea as though it is a burden to the family, which is proving the thesis statement that childbirth can be painful and can be a burden on the family; children are expensive to take care of and not everyone has the money to afford taking care of them. Con is right, condoms breaking doesn't make birth control a human right, what it means is that if people intend to have sex in a manner that is not procreative, and it is anatomically possible for such partners to reproduce, they should have access to birth control/contraceptives to nullify and slim the chances. The point, plan and simple, is that sex is not/should not be a strictly procreative activity in the world, and even couples capable of reproducing (i.e man & woman) can tend to have forms of sex that are not procreative. II. Addressing Con's Contentions "Why is it the taxpayer's burden to pay for someone elses stuff? It's not like birth control is too expensive. Target sells contraceptives at a rate that would have buyers without health insurance paying $9 per month [2]." Con is implying that the contention I am making here is that contraceptives should be distributed freely. That is not the contention I am pushing for. The contention I am pushing for is that contraceptives should be available to whomever needs them when they need them, and they should be a part of the general healthcare and freedom system of their country. A country should never be taking away the right women have to contraceptives and birth control, and just like healthcare, these things should always be available to those who want to buy them. Though it would, of course, be ideal that women get to have free contraceptives (at least for the women and their partners), it is not entirely necessary to do that. Taxpayers have a lot burdens, especially in the U.S, and paying for contraceptives to be free would be the least of their concern. "Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made. Nobody is burdened to pay for other peoples stuff. It's pretty simple." Does this contention address healthcare in a similar light? By revoking a woman's right to use contraceptives, one would be forcing them to raise their child and foster them away. "Don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [5]. There are a lot of ways to keep from having a child whilst not banging everything that moves." Again, sex should not have to be a strictly pro-creative activity between partners. Conditiong a country in a way where sex is strictly intended for reproducing is taking away plenty of basic human rights. Being celibate until marriage is also off-topic, seeing as those people intended to have children and had such for that reason specifically, not everyone does for that. What is a human right? A human right is [6] "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" This is a religious issue! You cannot have an atheistic debate over rights endowed by a Creator! If you believe that contraceptives are a human right, you assume that a superior being was all like This is a false definition, hu·man right noun plural noun: human rights a right that is believed to belong justifiably to ever http://www.humanrights.com... http://www.ohchr.org...III. Addressing Con's Questions"Is it morally justifiable to make someone else pay for your things if you can afford them? If yes, then who can't afford $9 of contraceptives? And why should we pay for them?"My contentions are not that contraceptives should be distributed at $0 prices. However, perhaps it would be logical to offer these contraceptives to someone through their health insurance, no?"Is it morally justifiable to make taxpayers pay for something that they believe is a gross violation of the human rights of the foetus?"It is ironic that con has jumped from the 'human rights' concept being a religious matter and not being material for the debate to actually using 'human rights' to justify the opposition of the right to contraceptives. May it also be on record that American taxpayers are paying for inhumane acts such as drone strikes and wars as it is, thus this would be too insignificant an amount of money to truly be a concern in the minds of taxpayers."Is it morally justifiable to make others take responsibility for your mistake in the bedroom?"No, but giving women the right to have contraceptives through their health insurance isn't doing this."Is it morally justifiable to kill a child so you can drink and smoke for 9 months?" This question is assuming that abortions are justified by the pregnant individual wanting to be able to drink and smoke."Would a just God give someone the right to kill his creation?"Take a look at the Bible, Torah and Koran; I would say based on those books that yes, a "just God" according to most religious people would allow such a thing._____________________________________________________________________________________Excuse my relatively short argument, my next will have much more length to it.

12

606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00004-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Birth Control is Immoral ~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a "birth control". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write "no argument as agreed upon" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.

9

b5339025-2019-04-18T18:30:27Z-00003-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

Public Schools should not have to wear school uniforms Public schools should not have to wear school uniforms. By wearing school uniforms you are not able to express yourself. I do believe that there should be rules about what you wear at a public school but everyone should not be forced to wear the same thing.

6

9fe06406-2019-04-18T14:16:46Z-00004-000

Is a college education worth it?

Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices Part One is the problem.A new face of childhood terror is sweeping across the metaphorical playground. Bullying has taken on an entirely new approach. No longer is the face of bullying a few thuggish kids on the playground demanding your lunch money, but a more insidious form of bullying from which there is no safe refuge, no escape from the torture. Webster[1]: Cyberbullying refers to bullying through ... technologies ... such as ... text messages, emails, phone calls, internet chat rooms, instant messaging – and ... social networking ... Cyberbullying is a fast growing trend that ... is more harmful than typical schoolyard bullying. Nearly all of us can be contacted 24/7 via the internet or our ... phones. Victims can be reached anytime and anyplace. For many children, home is no longer a refuge from the bullies. "Children can escape threats and abuse in the classroom, only to find text messages and emails from the same tormentors when they arrive home." And, this is a problem that's impossible to escape from and impossible to find help for. Victims are afraid to ask for help from their parents or school officials because of the backlash or inability for school officials to help. Agatston et al.[2]:' Students indicated that the majority of the incidents occurred outside of the school day, with the exception of cyber bullying via text messaging. Students indicated that they were unlikely to report cyber bullying to the adults at school, as it ... occurs via ... phone use, and it is against the school policy to have ... phones on during school hours. ... Students also indicated that they did not think the adults at school could help them if they were experiencing cyber bullying. ... students also indicated that they were reluctant to report cyber bullying to parents because they feared the loss of online privileges Keith and Martin[3] furthers: Part of the problem in combating cyber-bullying ... is that parents and kids relate to technology very differently. ... adults approach computers as practical tools, while for kids the Internet is a lifeline to their peer group. "Cyber-bullying is practically subterranean because it lives in the world of young people," ... Kids ... fear ... not only that the parents' response may make the bullying worse, but that the adults will take the technology away." And, solving cyberbullying is difficult to do. Anonymity is the bully's primary and most effective weapon, from which there is no escape. Keith and Martin 2: It can be much more difficult to identify bullies in cyberspace. ... screen names ... hide a person's true identity. It is easier to bully someone you don't have to face. With no boundaries or tangible consequences, children are using technology to vent ... frustrations in ways that can become very destructive. ... home was a place where a kid could go to escape ... With advances in technology, home is no longer a haven. ... today's bullies use technology to spread rumors and threats, making life miserable ... throughout the day and night. ... They cannot escape their bully because he can now follow them home. This is the new reality. Part Two is the Impacts:Cyberbullying is a serious mental health issue. It creates psychological problems and compounds already existing psychological issues. DeHue et al.[4]: ... being cyberbullied can ultimately result in serious physical, social, and psychological problems, such as serious depressive symptoms and stress. ... It has also been reported that youngsters with depressive symptoms experience more emotional stress as a consequence of being cyberbullied than do youngsters with less or no depressive symptoms. And, these psychological problems have multiple impacts on adolescents. Weisz et al.[5]: Depression in ... adolescents ... is a significant, persistent, and recurrent public health problem that undermines social and school functioning, generates severe family stress, and prompts significant use of mental health services ... Youth depression is also linked to increased risk of other psychiatric disorders ... as well as drug use and suicide ... which is the third most common cause of death among adolescents ... by the age of 18 years, some 20% of youths will have met criteria for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder at least once ... Prospective longitudinal research has shown substantial continuity of youth depression into adulthood, with impaired functioning in work, social, and family life, and markedly elevated risk of adult suicide attempts and completed suicide ... And, in the status quo, adolescents aren't getting the help they need to recover. Day and Flynn[6]: The paucity of mental health services means that many children, adolescents, and their families do not receive the psycho-therapeutic treatment that they need. The consequences fo this may be mental illness in adulthood and genearational psychological disturbance and abuse. If ignored, these social and psychological problems do not simply go away. Indeed, they are likely to increase the demands on adult mental health services ... children who have symptoms of depression and anxiety are referred less frequently to mental health serviecs ... yet we know that children and adolescents with symptoms of depression are three times more likely to make a suicide attempt or be hospitalized ... Part Three is the Solvency:The plan text is this: The USFG will grant adolescents the medical autonomy to seek treatment for mental health issues without parental concent if necessary. Autonomy is the key to treatment. Without it, adolescents won't go get treatment. Driggs[7]: Confidentiality is also an issue in the treatment of mental health problems. Some states have recognized the fact that many minors might not seek help with problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and other psychiatric care if parental consent were required. These exceptions to the general rule are considered by some to be an outgrowth of the emergency treatment for minors and the states' role in the protection of minors ... studies indicate ... factors such as family stressors and parental psychopathology may play a part in the mental health care decision. These exceptions are nto absed on the level of maturity of the minor, but rather are based on on the issues of the possible transmission of venereal disease, in increase in teenage pregnancy, and confidentiality. And, treatment effectively solves the problem. Mallot and Beidel[8]: Most studies and meta-analyses examining treatment outcome reveal consistent support for exposure-based congnitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). In fact, the outcome data are so consistently positive that CBT is recognized as the treatment of choice for adolescents with anxiety disorders ... the core element of CBT are seen as equally applicable to separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and GAD as these disorders share many features and appear to be distinct from other anxiety disorders. Sources:[1] - http://www.cyberbullying.info...[2] - http://arvin.kernhigh.org...[3] - http://bienestaryproteccioninfantil.es...[4] - http://www.researchgate.net...'_experiences_and_parental_perception/links/00b49514a0e932ab87000000.pdf[5] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] - Day, Lesley, BA, MSc (Econ), MSc (Psychotherapy), head of services @ Cassel Hospital, adult psychotherapist, prof @ Brunel University, and Flynn, Denis, Consultant psychotherapist, trained philosopher and social worker, eds. Internal and External Worlds of Children and Adolescents : Collaborative Therapeutic Care. 2003. ProQuest.[7] - Ann Eileen Driggs, R.N., J.D., "The Mature Minor Doctrine: Do Adolescents Have the Right to Die?" Health Matrix, Vol. 11:687[8] - Michael A., pf of psychology @ UCF, and Beidel, Deborah C., pf of psychology @ UCF. "Anxiety Disorders in Adolescents." in Comprehensive Evidence Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents. 2014. Wiley.

3

bb8a50de-2019-04-18T18:52:28Z-00004-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

free trade should be valued above protectionism "It is very important for you to know that free trade leads to better roads, better health and better lives" -- Rosario Castellon. I think that Rosario Castellon is exactly right free trade does lead to a better road. Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism. And yes it should before I begin this debate I would like to offer the following definitions. Free Trade: trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods Protectionism: Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade. All as defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary My value for this debate is societal welfare or the total well being of an entire society. My value criterion for this debate is free trade and I will prove that free trade upholds the well being of our society with three points first Free trade enhances competition, second competition is good for the economy, and third having a good economy promotes societal welfare. Free Trade Enhances Competition Free Trade brings competition to a global scale it brings companies that might not have competed with each other together to create products that are beneficial to us the consumers. Ok let's think for a minute, we have only one company in the United States that has a known gaming system and that's Microsoft with the Xbox, now with out free trade this would be the only gaming system creating a monopoly, they could raise prices to larger amounts for lower quality products but because we have free trade we have competition between Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo each creates a well known product by having this by having free trade we enhance competition, so that there aren't monopolies. We create this competition with Free Trade which in turn is better for the consumer and the economy. Free trade is beneficial to the Economy. The one thing that just about every American has on their mind is the economy. Some things that come to my mind when I think of the economy are unemployment and the prices of products that I need. Free Trade enhances competition, and Free trade is beneficial to the economy first it decreases unemployment and second it is beneficial to consumers. Free trade decreases unemployment. According to Professor Andrew Bernard of Dartmouth College , "about 40% of American workers work for firms that export. These exporting firms are vital for American jobs, especially at a time of slowing job creation. � The falling dollar makes American goods more desirable abroad, creating more jobs for Americans. � And foreign firms have headquarters here, employing 5.3 million American workers." May 2009. According to Organization for international investment this year currently foreign companies have 5.6 million people employed. This is jobs that are being created and with out free trade we wouldn't have more and more foreign companies are employing Americans to work for them and for good pensions and wages. Free Trade is beneficial for the consumers. In contention one I gave an example of how free trade is beneficial, it helps make prices lower and gives us the consumer's better products. According to the bureau of labor statistics a free trade economy pays 4.9% less than a protectionist economy. Doesn't that say it all right there that free trade lowers prices so there for it's beneficial to society. But not only does it bring lower prices but better products as well. Its common sense that if you have varieties of the same product that a consumer is going to choose the product that is the cheapest but best product so with a free trade economy companies can not afford to make bad products where if there wasn't those varieties and there wasn't that competition then companies wouldn't be as innovative. And that wouldn't be beneficial to the economy free trade is in the best interest of the economy and what's in the best interest of the economy should be in the best interest of society. Free trade upholds societal welfare. Societal welfare is the well being of society as a whole. It is common knowledge that the economy affects the welfare of society. When unemployment goes up people stop buying products and more people apply for social programs, like food stamps, and unemployment. So since I have proven that free trade is beneficial to the economy then isn't beneficial to society, doesn't it uphold societal welfare. Even according to the American Heritage Foundation free trade promotes a higher standard of living. Meaning that it does promote society as a whole and if it promotes societal welfare than it should be valued and you must vote for the affirmative. In my case I have proven that free trade enhances competition which prevents monopolies and creates better products that free trade is beneficial to the economy by lowering unemployment, and being beneficial to consumers, and that free trade upholds societal welfare by promoting a higher standard of living. Free trade does lead to a better road and I have proven this so vote for the affirmative Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.

5

36edccb7-2019-04-18T13:24:24Z-00005-000

Should social security be privatized?

Social Security I will begin my arguments now. ArgumentsI will separate my arguments into two parts: Criticisms and Alternatives. CriticismsFirst, Social Security discriminates against the poor and the middle class. Workers are required to pay 1.45% of their wages towards the Social Security fund when wages are below the wage base. As of 2016, the Social Security Wage Base is $118,500. As a result, those with a higher income pay a lower percentage of what they make, and there is no tax on unearned income. According to the Congressional Budget Office, benefits are about three times higher than taxes than it is for those in the top 5th. In a sense, Social Security is a regressive tax. Survivor benefits actually accelerate the pre-existing issues because they are denied to single individuals, including widows married for fewer than 9 months, divorced widows married fewer than 10 years, and same-sex couples, unless they are legally married. For unmarried individuals and minorities tend to be less wealthy, the system is less beneficial to them than it is for those who hold more wealth. The second issue is that Social Security, like all other forms of welfare, is essentially a Ponzi Scheme. While it is a separate tax in a paycheck stub, the money you pay in taxes toward Social Security is not treated as a separate tax; rather, the money you pay is included in regular tax revenue by the IRS. That money is later used to pay for the benefits to those who are retired today. When a payer retires, they will rely on the next generation of workers to pay the taxes that will finance their benefits. This is how a Ponzi Scheme works: it "generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop. "The 2011 annual report by the Social Security Board of Trustees shows that in 2010, 54 million people were receiving benefits, while 157 million people were paying it. Out of those who were receiving said benefits, 44 million were receiving retirement benefits and 10 million were receiving disability benefits. In 2011, there will be 56 million people receiving Social Security benefits and 158 million workers paying for it. In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and federal expenses were $712.5 billion. That is an increase in federal tax assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected (although without 100% certainty) to be adequate to cover the next 10 years of Social Security benefits. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover the expenditures required to pay for Social Security. Natural shifts in the demographics put a strain on the system. "[T]he ratio of potential retirees to workers will be 37% — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. … In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action. " AlternativesThere are many alternatives to the system of Social Security. For example, a private pension plan. A pension plan is similar to Social Security but is also different. When one opens a private pension, they pay money into it and it accumulates into reserves. Those reserves are eventually paid back to the individual in full. Essentially, they cannot touch that money until they need it. Social Security, on the other hand, is not even a fund. One pays into it when they start their first job, and they continue to pay it. Once they reach the cap and once they reach the retirement age, they are paid money each month by the government, though it is not from a fund. It is just cash. The former system works better and is a fairer system because it does not hand out money and does not require new payer to pay for old payers like a Ponzi Scheme does. Besides that, there is also money saving. It is obvious that pension plans are already sufficient, so even if one did not use a pension plan, there are savings accounts. One must choose not to touch that money, and if they touch it for unnecessary purchases, it is their own fault. In addition, individuals are presented with a multitude of private investment opportunities, which allow them to not only save their money, but to accumulate interest on the money that they do not touch and then make more of it. ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe I have provided sufficient evidence that a) Social Security is a poor system, and b) It can be replaced by other means to create a far superior system of retirement savings and financial security. Sources [1] Social Security Administration, "Contribution And Benefit Base," last modified 2016, . https://www.ssa.gov....[2] Congressional Budget Office, "Is Social Security Progressive? " Economic Budget and Issue Brief, . https://www.cbo.gov....[3] . http://www.investopedia.com...[4] . https://s044a90.ssa.gov...[5] . https://s044a90.ssa.gov...[6] Brooke Oberwetter, "Social Security: Bad for the Democrats," last modified June 13, 2005, . http://reason.com....[7] John Wihbey, "2011 annual report by the Social Security Board of Trustees," last modified June 9, 2011, . http://journalistsresource.org....[8] Securities Exchange Commission, "Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation," . http://www.sec.gov....[9] Geithner, Timothy, F. ; et al. , "2011 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal and Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds," US Government. *For the most part, I am citing my sources according to the Chicago Manual of Style

16

b6bf8417-2019-04-18T13:41:19Z-00001-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

should drugs be legal People who do drugs have a right to treat there bodies the way they want as long as they are not hurting anybody else. If drugs are legal when people are being affected by drugs they will be able to call for help without worrying about being arrested.

37

d1a8761c-2019-04-18T16:16:39Z-00004-000

Is cell phone radiation safe?

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

33

46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000

Should people become vegetarian?

Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER

37

799d051-2019-04-18T11:47:02Z-00002-000

Is cell phone radiation safe?

unknown 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李vv 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;|88;{64;{54;|26;z89;私{83;{85;{64;#696;#542;{75;|24;{58;{92;{75;{90;{56;|27;{71;{92;{63;|25;私{83;{85;|34;$855;惑{95;{75;{90;{56;|27;{92;思{87;{90;{56;|14;{77;z90;彼{99;私{64;彼女{98;李 私{99;{71;{98;人{95;#079;数{98;|50;|59;|54;}31;

48

dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00003-000

Should the voting age be lowered?

The lowering of the voting age>>> http://www.bbc.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your "arguments" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below. http://en.wikipedia.org... This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing. I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?

38

e00385e6-2019-04-18T19:34:57Z-00004-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp I will begin this round by clarifying the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to restate it in his favor. The resolution clearly states that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) can (not should) legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The and/or part of the resolution is stated as such because the DEA has lumped both together under their prohibition of marijuana (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). The DEA does not recognize industrialized hemp, which uses a non-euphoric strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana (. http://naihc.org...), as a separately scheduled substance. The and/or is also presented because the two, medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, can be dealt with separately through the DEA and FDA. The PAC's that advocate legalization of industrialized hemp are concerned with the hemp industry, and the advocates of medical marijuana are concerned with it's use as a medicine. There are PAC's (political action committees) lobbying for both, but they are generally treated as separate issues with benefits for different individuals throughout society (patients vs. farmers). Therefore, my resolution stands as originally stated. To respond to my opponents first three contentions would be to deviate from my own resolution. My premise for this debate does not advocate the legalization of medical marijuana, rather my resolution is regarding the power the US Federal Government possesses to legalize either medical marijuana, industrialized hemp, or both. My opponent claims that it is the duty of the government to serve and protect it's citizens, and implies that it is the duty of the government to protect it's citizens from harming their own health. This is not a valid contention against the power of the Federal Government to legalize medical marijuana because the government has legalized harmful substances in the past (alcohol, cigarettes, the medical use of morphine, morphinol, and other opiates, the medical use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, etc. , etc. , etc. ). (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). Even cocaine and powdered opium are Schedule II drugs, which means they have an accepted medical use and can be prescribed by a doctor. My opponent claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. I contend that nearly any medicine has the potential for abuse, and I will define drug abuse as taking a psychoactive drug or performance enhancing drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Indeed alcohol has a much higher potential for abuse, it is a drug, and does not have nearly the accepted medical use as marijuana. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(I could not find a source for the medical use of alcohol)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Though I will not argue the issue of high potential for abuse, I will argue his contention that medical marijuana has an "enormous lack of accepted safety for use of the drug". Rescheduling requires that it be accepted for medical use, and I will list what a few medical agencies say about the issue: "The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana . .. under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications. " Reference: 1996-1997 AAFP Reference Manual - Selected Policies on Health Issues "The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government . .. to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate IND program for medical marijuana, and . .. reschedul[ing] marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and . .. end[ing] the medical prohibition against marijuana. " Reference: AMSA House of Delegates Resolution #12 : adopted March 1993 "The American Nurses Association will: . .. Support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana/cannabis under appropriate prescriber supervision. Support the ability of health care providers to discuss and/or recommend the medicinal use of marijuana without the threat of intimidation or penalization. Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis. " Reference: ANA Resolution: June 2003 American Preventive Medical Association "Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government. " Reference: "Medicinal Use of Marijuana" policy statement: December 8, 1997 Belgian Ministry of Health "[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use. . .. This is an area where public health must prevail. " Reference: Statement of the Health Ministry, as quoted in Expatica. com (Brussels), September 4, 2003. British Medical Association "Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. . .. [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments. " Reference: BMA report: "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis:" November 1997 So not only is marijuana widely accepted in the medical community as medically beneficial, the side effects are far less harmful than those of other drugs, including many Schedule II drugs like cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal Laws that undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would legalize marijuana because Federal prohibition of marijuana falls under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (please see R1 for argument and sources). House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would express support for "a very small number of individuals" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity. If HR 5843 were passed, the House would support marijuana smokers possessing up to 100 grams -- about 3� ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also give its blessing to the "nonprofit transfer" of up to an ounce of marijuana. The resolution would not address laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not speak to state laws regarding marijuana use. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs. It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because the US Federal Government has the power- in various forms, ie. House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition- to "eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana" as stated in House Res. 5843, and legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal, I affirm that the US Federal Government CAN legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you.

27

2abbb73a-2019-04-18T11:09:40Z-00002-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Gun Control Laws affect blacks negatively CON has failed to regonize the context of discrimination. discrimination- treatment or consideration of, Or making a distinction towards, A person based on the group, Class, Or category to which the person is perceived to belong. My argument was that gun control laws is discriminative which isn't always with racist intent. As well as the title should've implied the context provided. The question you provided is interesting. Does the historical context apply? , Is White on White Crime bigger than Black On Black? , Are there parallels with blacks and whites? , Do many of the variables apply? First, Lets dive into the history! {--SOUTHERN GUN CONTROL--} Gun control existed in North America even before the creation of the US and was racially motivated in its earliest forms. The first law in the colony of Virginia that mentioned African-Americans was a 1664 act that barred free blacks from owning firearms. Another pre-Revolutionary example is "An Act for the Better Ordering of Negroes and Slaves" signed by South Carolina in 1712 which included provisions addressing firearm ownership by blacks. The Nat Turner rebellion in August of 1831 was the realization of slave owner"s greatest fears. Over 70 slaves and free blacks took part in an uprising that killed at least 57 white people before it was finally put down. This prompted a number of Southern states to adopt measures that would restrict blacks from owning guns. For example, Delaware instituted a law in December of 1831 that required free blacks to obtain a firearms license if they wished to have weapons. In the same month Maryland and Virginia passed laws that prohibited free blacks from carrying guns. Georgia soon followed by barring free blacks from firearm ownership entirely in 1833. The racist laws passed following the rebellion were reactionary response passed primarily out of fear of blacks, Free or not. This trend of restricting the firearm rights of those perceived as a threat to the established powers of society will continue throughout the history of the United States. The Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, And 15th amendments were supposed to give African-American"s the same rights as all other US citizens. Just as the South found ways to keep black people from voting, It also found ways to ensure that they remained unarmed and vulnerable to coercion by violence. The adoption of "Black Codes" by Southern legislatures directly contradicted the spirit and letter of these newly enacted amendments, But were enforced anyway. Although Black Codes applied to many different aspects of life, One of its major aims was to keep blacks from possessing firearms. For example, Mississippi Black Code states: "Be it enacted. . . That no freedman, Free Negro or mulatto, Not in the military. . . And not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, Shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, Or any ammunition. " There are many more examples but I think you got the point. Gun control laws have been racist to blacks in the past and in the south. {--GUN CONTROL IN THE NORTH--} Efforts to tighten gun control laws in the North only began in response to a dramatic rise in immigration. Prior to this period it was socially acceptable for an upper class man to carry a small pocket pistol to protect himself from criminals. The perceived need for stricter gun control laws coincided with the arrival of Eastern and Southern Europeans who were commonly viewed as "criminal elements" in society. Armed robbery was frequently attributed to immigrants and "foreign-born anarchists". These prejudices were perpetuated by groups such as the Immigration Restriction League and the American Protective Association, Which supported a ban on all firearm ownership by aliens. The first widespread restrictions on firearm ownership in the North came in New York City, Which was the hub of European immigration. Efforts had been underway for a number of years to slowly push the public into accepting gun control. For example, A newspaper editorial from the time states that pistols were found "chiefly in the pockets of ignorant and quarrelsome immigrants of law breaking propensities. " The culmination of these efforts was the passage of the Sullivan Law on May 29, 1911. Senator Sullivan declared the bill would "do more to carry out the commandment thou shalt not kill and save more souls than all the talk of all the ministers and priest in the state for the next ten years. " The year before the Sullivan Law was passed there were 108 homicides in New York City, And the year after its implementation there were 113. Despite its shortcomings, The idea of police issued gun permits spread throughout the United States. Between 1911 and 1934 Arkansas, Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon all passed laws similar to the Sullivan Law. California and New Hampshire went as far as banning aliens from owing firearms. A 1918 ruling by a New Hampshire court which upheld the alien gun ban So in conclusion: Gun control laws have historically been discriminatory. {--CURRENT RESTRICTIONS--} New York City is still home to some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation which are in effect highly discriminatory against the poor. The city still requires a permit to purchase a gun, Just as it did when the Sullivan Law was passed in 1911. At that time, The police could simply deny certain people permits based on ethnicity, Something that would not be allowed today. Instead, New York City has created a set of requirements that virtually ensures that the poor will be unable to secure a permit. The process of applying is time consuming and complicated. The city requires that the permit be submitted in person, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a. M. To 3:30 p. M. At the licensing division. This means if someone works a 9-5 job that they will have to take time off from work and get to Manhattan to submit an application. Taking time off work may be impossible for poor people. New York City still makes the permitting process difficult for immigrants as well. One requirement is: Proof of Citizenship/Alien Registration: If you were born outside the United States, You must submit your naturalization papers or evidence of citizenship if derived from your parents. All other applicants born outside the United States must submit their Alien Registration Card. If you have lived in this country less than 7 years you must submit a good conduct certificate, Or equivalent, From your country of origin and two (2) letters of reference that certify to your good character. No rationale or justification could be found for the additional requirements imposed on alien residents of less than seven years, And the seven year standard appears on its face to be arbitrary and simply intended to discourage foreign born people from applying for a gun permit. The most effective measure to keep the poor from owning guns is the cost to apply for the permit. The application fee is $340 and the applicant must also be fingerprinted at an additional cost of $94. 25. These costs seem deliberately prohibitive considering that it costs less then $100 to register a car in New York. Public housing often experiences disproportionately high rates of crime, So removing guns from these areas appears to be a well meaning remedy. Public housing gun bans therefore results in law abiding residents being disarmed even though they were committing a minority of the crimes in the area and were frequently the victims of the crimes involved. Many black communities have been hit by poverty and crime. Getting a gun is the only way to protect yourself. Blacks with guns have been discriminated in some cases of Police Brutality as well as jurisdiction sentences. Today, White people are 14x times more likely to own a gun than blacks and its showing. Places with a majority black or hispanic population with strict gun control, Don't help blacks but hurt them.

7

8fa3a98b-2019-04-18T19:35:48Z-00003-000

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

In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Because I support the VALUES set forth in the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I affirm. The CRITERA I advocate for your ultimately deciding this debate are: (1) OBJECTIVITY: This debate should not be decided on the basis of preexisting personal opinions, bias, or prejudice. (2) LOGIC: This debate should not be decided on the basis undisciplined emotionalism. (3) TANGIBLE, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE: This debate should be decided upon documented facts, not upon abstract, unverifiable, hypotheses. MY RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FRAMEWORK: (A) The United States of America is a democratic society; indeed, it is the most prominent democratic society in the world today. (B) Of all the democratic societies in the world today (and I believe that there are 119 countries which identify themselves as such), the United States stands almost alone in automatically disenfanchising (revoking the right to vote of) felons. The consensus of experts in the fields of law, criminology, and political science is that - today - appromiately 2.5% of the American adult population (5-6 million people) in this country is denied the right to vote because of "felon" and/or "ex-felon" status. CONTENTION ONE: The American policy of revoking the right to vote felons (which I will now consistently refer to as "felon disenfranchisement") is illogical and haphazard. There are many reasons for this: A. Many of the people who commit felonies are never arrested, so they are never identified as "felons." Either the crimes go unreported, or the investigations fail to locate a suspect. (For example, remember the "anthrax killings" which occurred after 9/11.) B. Many of the people who are arrested for committing felonies are not prosecuted. The charges them are dropped - or reduced to misdemeanors - for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the suspect's guilt or innocence (i.e., prosecutorial discretion (including the prosecutor's political agenda), court-clog, and/or jail-prison overcrowding). C. Many of the people who are arrested for committing felonies, and who are prosecuted, "plea-bargain" down to a misdemeanor, and therefore retain the right to vote. D. Many of the people in this country who are convicted of felonies (the expert estimates range from .5% to 14%) are actually INNOCENT! E. Even if our criminal justice system were perfect (which it certainly isn't), there is no logical reason to believe that felons - as a group - would be "worse voters" than untreated alcoholics, untreated drug addicts, psychotics (treated or untreated), the homeless, illiterates, morons, grade-school dropouts, moral perverts, petty criminals (as noted before, unlike "felons," people who commit "misdemeanors" retain the right to vote), and/or lawyers... and yet only felons are the only adult citizens singled out under American law for disenfranchisement. Indeed, a good case can be made for theory that the only real justification for felon disenfranchisement in America is ulterior desire to perpetuate racism and/or material elitism. CONTENTION TWO: The American policy of felon disenfranchisement actually HARMS the American democratic society. I assert this for two independent reasons: A. Felony disenfranchisement increases crime. (If you prefer debatespeak and/or legalese, "felony disenfranchisement encourages criminal recidivism.") Disenfranchisement (which, by the way, has historically be referred to as "civil death"), by definition and design, alienates the felon from society, severely damages the felon's chances for rehabilitation, and gives the felon a greater incentive to commit even more crime when he or she is ultimately released from prison (assuming he or she is sent to prison in the first place - many felons are not - instead, they are placed on "probation"). Empirical studies - including some conducted right here in the good old USA - demonstrate that in those jurisdictions in which felons retain the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to commit another crime than in jurisdictions which deny felons the right to vote. B. Felony disenfranchisement laws backfire - they disenfranchise non-felons. (If you prefer debatespeak or legalese, "felon disenfranchisement is counterproductive.") In our democratic society, the right to vote is regulated, in large part, by State governments. Each of America's 50 states has it own laws concerning felony disenfranchisement. Two - Maine and Vermont - have no restrictions whatsoever on the voting rights of felons - the position supported by the resolution; Two other States - Kentucky and Virginia - have automatic lifetime felon disenfranchisement. The remaining 46 States - and the District of Columbia - have created a veritable Rubik's Cube of rules, regulations and requirements which almost no one - expect perhaps a full-time election law attorney - can decipher. As a result, the mere existence of felony disenfrachisement creates three inherent problems for non-felons who wish to exercise their right to vote. All of the following three problems have been empirically verified in the American elections that took place in 2004 and 2006, and the evidence also empirically demonstrates that they are occurring in 2008: A. VOTER CAGING: Lists of the names of convicted felons are cynically manipulated by partisans of one party or another to attack innocent voters - and literally hundreds of thousands of innocent voters are "purged" from voter registration lists, or are "challenged" at the polls on election day, or both. This is known as "voter caging," and it's anti-democratic to the max. (For example, my name is Michael Miller. I have never committed a felony, but they are -at least - hundreds of people named "Michael Miller" who have committed a felony. Because of this, I may be challenged at the polls any time I try to vote, and it is quite possible that someday I will be denied the right to vote.) B. INNOCENT MISTAKES: Even well-meaning election officials are confused by the American maze of felon disenfranchisement laws. As a result, they often make mistakes and refuse to allow bona fide citizens to register to vote. In some States (i.e., South Carolina), mistaken interpretation of voter eligibility laws - by completely honest election officials - runs as high as 61%! C. SELF-DISENFRANCHISEMENT: Most Americans are not constitutional lawyers, nor are they experts in the field of election law. Thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans mistakenly believe that because they were arrested at some point in their lives, they have lost the right to vote, even though the charges against them were dropped, or they were found not guilty at trial. Thousands of others - who have very minor "criminal histories" - mistakenly believe that convictions for minor infractions, juvenile offenses, and/or misdemeanors disqualify them from voting. CONCLUSION: Like the disaster known as "Prohibition" in the America of the 1920's and early 1930's, felon disenfrachisement is a classic example of an arguably-noble theory that just doesn't work in the "real world" of American democracy. In addition, in the "real world" of American politics and elections, the policy of felon disenfranchisement - no matter how scrupulously it is applied - causes much more harm than to our society than it prevents. I support felon enfranchisement - not because it's the right thing to do for felons - but because it's right thing to do for YOU - and all the rest of America's democratic society.

18

c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00002-000

Should churches remain tax-exempt?

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

15

79994705-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00002-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones I have two main points: 1. Drone Strikes kill innocent civilian lives 2. Drones create more terrorists than they kill 1. "The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on the 13th of January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the same man who would later become al-Qaeda's leader, this time in Bajaur.R32; Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. But seventy-six innocent children and 29 innocent adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not." [1] "Documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse." [2] My opponent might state that drone strikes help save lives, that they can protect us. But they can't. They take many innocent lives, lives of people who have done nothing wrong. The international community MUST ban armed drones as it is our moral imperative, as humans and citizens of the world, to protect life, and hold it sacred. 2. People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone attacks become motivated to join actions against the United States. According to author Jeremy Scahill, the vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today are "people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight." "Drone strikes take out a few bad guys to be sure, but they also kill a large number of innocent civilians. Given Yemen"s tribal structure, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] operative killed by drones." [3] Even if my previous argument is wrong, we still have a moral imperative to ban armed drones, due to the fact that, even if we accomplish the goal of killing a terrorist, we are simply creating more. Whatever impact the con claims we gain from drone strikes, we merely are creating more problems. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... -Spencer Ackerman (Author) [2] The Intercept, taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] Nabeel Khoury, who was deputy chief of mission in Yemen from 2004 to 2007, taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

30

30ae541c-2019-04-18T15:18:38Z-00004-000

Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Concealed Carry on College Campuses Having more guns in circulation means that the probability of someone shooting another person goes up. Students like me would feel very unsafe on campuses with all these guns around. Even if the students were qualified, being legally qualified to own a gun and being trustworthy to actually own guns is not the same thing. You cite rape and assaults, but how bad are these really? Take rape, for example. What is rape?Feminists often say that 1 in 4 women are raped on college campuses which would be where you got your 25% statistic. However, it's been shown that the studies done to obtain these statistics are lax in standard and incredibly misleading."Statistic: "1 out of every 4 women will be raped in her lifetime." Truth: Ah, here's the doozy. I'm sure we're all familiar with the source of this statistic: a study by Mary Koss that has been discredited countless times. Around three-quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred. So, what do statistics collected from non-feminist sources say? Well, let's try the FBI statistics. According to an FBI report, which did not account for differing definitions of rape, whether or not the rapes were convicted, or whether or not female-on-male rape was included, the United States had a rate of 29 reported rapes per 100,000 people in 2009. That's not going to get us to 25%, but I'm feeling generous, so let's look at the country with the highest rate of rape in the past decade–South Africa, with a rate of 116 rapes per 100,000 people in one year. Percentage wise, this is .1% of the population. Now, I'll admit that I'm worse at math than anything else in the world, but even I know this isn't even close to "1 in 4″."[1]The majority of 'rapes' are not actually rapes? Are women then justified to own guns and kill these supposed rapists? Even considering the crime, a rape does not justify murder, even in self-defense. Virginity < life.There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership.Point 2I would really hate to live in an apartment with 6 roommates with each and every one of them owning a gun. If all college students had guns, the probability of college students being shot to death would go up disproportionately. The dangers of people taking these guns and shootingthem, whether or not they're licensed to have them, is incredibly terrifying.Point 3Guns as self defense is not justified."Compared to criminal homicides using guns, the VPC data shows justifiable homicide with a gun in 2010 was a tiny fraction: 230 of them compared to 8,275 criminal gun-related homicides."That's about 8000 cases of unjustified not-really-self-defense use, about 97% unjustified use.Apply that to college students. Statistically, 97% of gun owners will use their guns to kill unjustifiably. More guns means more unjustified deaths. Concealed carry shouldn't be a thing at all.[1] http://www.avoiceformen.com...;[2] http://www.dailykos.com...;

23

7d51d9aa-2019-04-18T16:21:24Z-00008-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia Should Be Illegal This is a 500 character debate.In this debate, the word euthanasia will be as followed: http://en.wikipedia.org...First round is for acceptance. Please no arguments in the first round.I will be focusing on Euthanasia in North America.

9

df002939-2019-04-18T11:10:56Z-00005-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

Uniforms I believe uniforms are vital in school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Between the years 2015 and 2016 22% of public schools acquired uniforms. This is because uniforms are believed to help students focus more on education than what they are wearing. If students are wearing expensive clothes at school, They will definitely regret it. The clothes might get stained, Painted on or even ripped. Even with stitching, Expensive clothes look horrible when ripped. Furthermore, Students have fewer chances of getting bullied when wearing uniforms. This is because everyone would be wearing the exact same clothes; therefore, There would be no reason to bully others. No one wants to get bullied for what they like to wear. On trips, Students are supposed to wear school uniforms. When they get lost, It will be easier to find them. It is better than searching for a specific person with clothes anybody can wear. We can't deny that kids adore the thought of not having to decide what to wear each day. Instead of spending hours of time putting together outfits, A student simply puts on their uniform. Chant'e Haskins shared her opinion after going from a school with no uniforms to one with uniforms. She says after wearing the uniform for a whole school year she "was so used to wearing the uniform it did not even bother me anymore. " Chant'e adds she saved time in the morning by not having to pick out an outfit and was able to customize her look with accessories to keep some individuality. Proponents suggest kids who wear school uniforms feel more connected to their school, Encounter less bullying, And have a more professional attitude. All of these factors contribute to more positive behaviour in school. In one school's online survey, About 25% of student respondents said they believe school uniforms would promote positive behaviour. It is generally thought that students who wear school uniforms behave more appropriately in the school environment. They believe that uniforms dictate a stricter atmosphere and that students who wear uniforms are more likely to follow school rules. Again, I must repeat that school uniforms are beneficial in many ways to both the students and the school.

39

bd8467d7-2019-04-18T12:53:07Z-00005-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage Thanks for accepting! I'm honestly a bit surprised that my opponent accepted this topic as it's very clear to me that the minimum wage is necessary and morally correct in our economy. To be clear, the resolution states that *ALL* minimum wages, including those that the state sets, should be abolished. Throughout the course of the debate I'll be defending the position that state's should set their minimum wage according to the living wage in that area and adjust it constantly according to inflation. Sorry that this is a little sloppy, I ran out of time: First of all, any program to increase the minimum wage needs to be flexible to support small businesses: The Star Tribune, July 27 2015 "Minnesota's minimum wage rises to $9 per hour Saturday" "Minnesota will vault past Illinois, Michigan and South Dakota this week to gain the highest minimum wage in the Midwestern region at $9 an hour, which also will rank among the most-generous state wage floors in the country. Small Minnesota employers " those with annual gross revenue below $500,000 " still will be permitted to pay workers less, with their minimum wage matching the federal minimum. Businesses can also pay trainees at the lower rate for 90 days, and teens can be paid less, too." The minimum wage bill passed by the Minnesota state legislature this year included stipulations that aimed at reducing the burden placed on small businesses through delayed wage hikes, I'm in favor of doing the exact same in other cities and states in the US. A minimum wage floor that addresses varying regional costs of living will be able to provide a living wage to all who need it: The Pew Research Center, Aug. 3 2015 "The real value of a $15 minimum wage depends on where you live" "Honolulu is the most expensive metro area in the U.S. " a $15 national minimum wage would have a real purchasing power of $12.24 there. Beckley, West Virginia, has the lowest RPP (regional price parity) of any metro area in the nation, so a $15 minimum would have the purchasing power of $19.23 there. (Allentown, Pennsylvania, incidentally, has an RPP of exactly 100, making it the only metro area where $15 really would mean $15. If the goal were to guarantee low-paid workers everywhere in the country the same real purchasing power, that would require hundreds of different minimum wages, scaled to each locality"s cost of living. For example, giving everyone the same purchasing power that $15 has in New York City would cost $13.07 in Chicago; $12 in Fresno, California; $11.10 in Cincinnati; and just $10.43 in Anniston, Alabama." So I agree that federal minimum wages are terrible. However, state minimum wages are necessary as they subsidize low wage workers. We also see huge benefits from the minimum wage in the economy, reducing the costs associated with it: Increased Consumption "Poor people are what economists call 'borrowing constrained.' They tend to have more needs than are being met, so when money arrives, they spend it." http://www.bloomberg.com... Money that minimum wage workers receive is spent right away and basically just sent right back to businesses, stimulating the economy. According to a paper released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, "an increase of $1.75 in the hourly federal minimum wage raises aggregate household spending by roughly $48 billion in the year following the minimum wage hike" https://www.chicagofed.org... The evidence clearly demonstrates that minimum wage increases help the economy due to the fact that poor people are able to meet their economic potential and spend more in our economy. Higher Productivity Workers who have greater income security also experience less poverty-related stress, which further boosts their productivity. A report from the Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that "high-wage firms can sometimes offset more than half of their higher wage costs through improved productivity and lower hiring and turnover costs". http://www.jstor.org... Corporate Tax Cuts Because the minimum wage would ensure that way more minimum wage workers receive a living wage, the government would need less money to spend on welfare. As a result, we could implement a corporate tax cut which further lessens the burden on companies. In closure, the minimum wage *I* propose would: ensure that those who are willing to work receive a living wage, would be based off of regional costs, and ultimately not even hurt the economy at a considerable rate. It's morally correct for the government to look after it's people and try to reduce suffering as much as possible. For these reasons, I affirm.

22

be328f3c-2019-04-18T19:54:56Z-00002-000

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

Abortion is wrong! Hey Kibbles, Under most circumstances, I would agree with you that an abortion is not the right measure to take. However, you have chosen to take the extreme and assert that there is no reason, whatsoever, that a child should be aborted. To your credit, if someone is negligent in their behavior, like having unprotected sex, than an abortion is an easy way out for an individual (at the expense of a child's life). But, abortion, like all behaviors, is acceptable when certain circumstances are involved. The abortion issue is a debate where two rights are in conflict with one another. The first right is the right to life, and the other being the right an individual (in this case, a woman) to choose. These rights are both very important in society, and those who choose right to life often cite that there is NO reason where abortion is an appropriate solution. Those who believe in a woman's right to choose above all will also note that most of them would never get an abortion, but that the option should be open. So, from here, I shall defend that there are times when an abortion is necessary. From an abstract view, there are at least two scenarios where an abortion is an acceptable alternative. The first one is in the incidence where a woman is raped. When a woman is raped, the power of a woman's right to choose has been stripped from her. It can be traumatic, and the emotional pain that follows the incident can be lasting. The only thing that could make the situation worse is if the rapist impregnated her (or gave her a disease, but let's ignore that part). What should she do? If abortion were completely illegal, she would be forced to deal with a child that was a product of the sex that she didn't choose to have. Even if she put the child up for adoption immediately, her ability to move on emotionally could be strongly hindered by the constant reminder of her child. This would be a case where a woman's right to choose was twice infringed. Allowing the option for abortion would at least give the victim some options on what to do in order to help herself move on, giving at least one MORE choice for her at the time when she's most vulnerable. This is not to say that all children of rape should be aborted, far from it. It's merely to acknowledge that when choice is preemptively taken from a woman, it is only fair to give it back in some way. It is the victim of the incident that needs to take priority over the rights of the unborn. Another incident where it should be acceptable to choose abortion is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. In some rare incidences, the unborn child can risk the life of the mother. Whether it be that the mother has a weak heart or other hormonal imbalance, or if the fetus is actually harming the parent, an abortion may be necessary to save the mother. This is a case where the right of one person to live conflicts with the rights of another to live... But, that conflict is kind of nullified when it's acknowledge that the child would have no chance to live if the mother died. There are preventative measures that could be taken if it's acknowledged that the mother could not handle a pregnancy early, but the option for abortion needs to be available if that need is not assessed early. Finally, it should be necessary to allow for an abortion if it can be determined that the child could be born with some debilitating illness that could cripple it's ability to live. If some illness could ultimately lead to a shortened, painful life for the child, an abortion could be considered as an act of mercy. Or, if some congenital illness could make the child simply incapable of handling some of the simplest of life's tasks, abortion should be considered as an option. There could obviously be extensive debate over what diseases would fall into this category, but I just wanted to acknowledge that this is a legitimate reason to consider abortion as an alternative.

14

633489a6-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00002-000

Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Gay Marriage Thanks again to GCL. I will now present my arguments.FRAMEWORKThe topic reads "Gay Marriage is immoral." This is not a debate about gay sex; rather, it is a debate about gay marriage.That being said, sexual acts are integral to marriage, and so some discussion of gay sex is appropriate. However, we must recall that this is about the institution of marriage itself, not about what occurs within the marriage.Definitions:Marriage - "a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." [1]Choice - "the act of choosing: picking/deciding between possibilities." [2]Sexual Orientation - "to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum." [3]Morality - "conformity to ideals of right human conduct." [2] I assert that fairness is a good criterion for morality. Clarification: I know I'm listed as Pro; however, I will be arguing gay marriage is NOT immoral.ARGUMENTSContention One: Orientation is not a ChoiceA. Homosexuality is found in animalsNumerous animal species display homosexual orientations [4]. One famous example of this is the union of two female Swans. [5] Officials originally believed them to be a heterosexual couple, naming them Romeo and Juliet, only to--after investigation--discover that the couple was lesbian. This shows, at the very least, that homosexual orientations can be evidenced in nature. I would further posit, that since animals lack the rationality required to make higher-order decisions, that they did not choose to be lesbian, but were born that way. Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard once asserted that choice is about the ability to self-direct. Nonhumans lack choice. A cow, for instance, is a purely natural being; its behavior is always determined by worldly facts. The composition of a cow, the environment of a cow, and the natural laws governing Mother Earth determine what the cow does at all stages of its life. The cow, in essence, lacks the free will to act contrary to what any of the biological/natural factors dictate. For example, if a cow is hungry, it will eat; it cannot consciously choose not to eat even though it is hungry. It cannot fight against its natural urges."The Swans cannot choose to be straight or gay. Rather, they are simply submitting to their natural, homosexual urges.B. Behavioral AnalysisLearned behavior can be untaught. [6] Something that is innate cannot be untaught. For example, no psychologist could teach me to turn my blues eye brown. In this same way, homosexuality cannot be untaught. The APA, America's premier psychological association, has found that homosexuality cannot be "cured" and cannot be undone via therapy. [7] Other psychological experts concur. [8, 9] Even groups that have tried to unteach homosexuality have acknowledged their failures. [10] Therefore, people don't choose orientation.C. ConclusionSexual Orientation is not a choice. "Sexual orientation is not simply a personal characteristic but defines a group of people in which one is likely to discover satisfying and romantically fulfilling relationships as essential components of personal identity." [9]Contention Two: NondiscriminationA. It is wrong to discriminate based on things people have no control overPeople are responsible for their choices--not for things they cannot influence or control. Insofar as people cannot control whether or not they are gay, they are not responsible for their orientation. To say that they should be treated differently because of some factor beyond their control is to unfairly discriminate.Just as African Americans should not be persecuted for their skins color, women should not be persecuted for their gender, and people should not be persecuted based on their place of birth, gay people should not be persecuted for being gay. B. Civil Unions are insufficient"The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable." [11] We can also look to the Supreme Court's striking down of DOMA as unduly discriminatory and unequal to see that the highest Court in the U.S. conquers that there should be a more equal footing here. [11, 12] C. The Libertarian ParadigmIt is also important to point out here that gay marriage poses no active harm to any one else. Gay individuals getting married does not endanger you or your neighbors, nor does it serve any government benefit to deny gay couples marriage rights. It seems like an inappropriate use of government coercion, therefore, to prevent these loving couples from exercising their autonomy and getting married.D. ConclusionThe concept of Civil Unions is akin to the idea of Separate but Equal. Yet, Separate but Equal is inherently unequal. Gay couples are relegated to second-class unions for something they cannot control. This is inherently unfair.Contention Three: Preemption regarding Homosexual sexA. Set-up"We can and often do evaluate sexual activity morally: we inquire whether a sexual act—either a particular occurrence of a sexual act (the act we are doing or want to do right now) or a type of sexual act (say, all instances of homosexual fellatio)--is morally good or morally bad." [13] Some might claim, like the Catholic Church for instance, that having a homosexual orientation is not immoral, but having homosexual sex is. It is the contrast between the State of Homosexuality and Acts of Homosexuality. B. What makes Sex Wrong: The ContractWhat makes sex wrong--particularly sex within a marriage? Marriage is a contract that implies exclusivity between partners and caring for/honoring one's partner. These themes are echoed and enshrined in a variety of common marriage vows. [14] Therefore, within marriage, it is wrong to commit adultery (violates exclusivity) or to rape or abuse one's spouse (violates honoring/cherishing). Gay couples can be faithful and are fully able to consent. It seems then that the marriage contract itself would not prohibit gay sex.C: What makes Sex Wrong: The TelosSome claim that the purpose of something (its telos) matters when making right/wrong and good/bad judgments. For example, a calculator that solves math problems is a good calculator. Some claim that sex's purpose is to procreate; therefore, good sex is sex that results/could result in procreation. There are several logical problems with the teleological approach:1. Purpose is Nebulous 1A. Purpose cannot always be determined 1B. Objects often have multiple purposes so it is a fruitless task to attempt to synthesize an object's/institution's purpose into one thing as Con attempts to do 2. Purpose =/= should. For example, let's suppose that a gun's purpose is to murder. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean that is how it should be used.3. Purpose is not exclusive. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean it cannot morally be used for other things (hunting, deterrence, self-defense, sport, etc.)Therefore, the teleological approach is a logical fallacy; a non-sequitur if you will.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...3 - http://www.apa.org...4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - http://www.mombian.com...6 - http://www.mentalhelp.net...7 - http://www.sgn.org...8 - http://www.mens-wellbeing.com...9 - http://communities.washingtontimes.com...10 - http://www.speroforum.com...11 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 12 - http://www.reuters.com... 13 -http://www.iep.utm.edu...14 - http://www.ehow.com...Thanks! Over to GCL...

11

4bc9f164-2019-04-18T17:44:16Z-00001-000

Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Segregation should be accepted toward Rednecks Well then.... i wasnt serious... I do hate rednecks though. they are annoying chaw masters... case closed. I win.

2

691acc63-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00020-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Sports shooting is a safe activity Shooting as a sport has the potential to desensitize people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorizes and legitimizes unnecessary gun ownership.

19

c27d9933-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00006-000

Should gay marriage be legal?

Should gay marriage be legal u r telling the truth about the united states but I don't agree with gay marriage because its just wrong and weird I mean its promoting diseases in our society and teaching children in our community to think wrong

28

94b6b4c-2019-04-18T11:10:45Z-00003-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Prostitution should be legalized Legalizing prostitution isn't going to solve anything. More prostitutes is absolutely not a goal which we should pursue, Since it's bad for the economy and bad for women. You say "legalizing prostitution would close the gap between the two a little bit more" like it's a good thing. No, It's not a good thing! There is a huge difference between being naked/having sex with attractive people on camera versus being paid to have sex with people you don't know. And that gap shouldn't be shrunk! We shouldn't try to grow the prostitution industry, We should try to eliminate it completely. Legalizing prostitution would only increase the amount of prostitutes.

43

59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000

Should bottled water be banned?

Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...

22

8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000

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

Only a one-state solution can end the conflict It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: "We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace."(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

2

52ece351-2019-04-18T16:22:02Z-00006-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Gay "Safe Sex" A Penicious Lie There is no safe way to have male-to-male anal sex. Nothing else explains why gay males are 75% of all new HIV cases. Obviously, they're engaging in a behavior that causes them contract the virus.Condoms slip off, burst, are forgotten, not wanted, told they're being used when they aren't. The bottom line is "safe sex" although a great concept, is not working. And then there's all the other health hazards associated with male-to-male anal sex. The anal/rectum substructure were not designed for the heavy pounding the vagina gets. After frequent anal sex the anus becomes dysfunctional; it can no longer sustain its fecal seal. The gay community doesn't want you to know how many young gay men wear diapers.None of this is mentioned when gay speakers go to our schools and tell children how wonderful the homosexul experience is. The border-line boy is not told chances are he'll have HIV before he reaches 30 and will be wearing diapers before he's 25.

35

5547489c-2019-04-18T17:05:01Z-00000-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why You confuse me, but I will reason with you. Let me get my point across the voters: I think that parents should decide what is right for their children. This is different than what my opponent argues - that teens should be allowed to buy and purchase whatever they like. My argument is that violent video games shouldn't be outlawed for teenagers, but should require parental consent to avoid things like increased aggressiveness and becoming less-agreeable, found in studies.

35

a4146d25-2019-04-18T16:33:25Z-00005-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Video Games This debate will be about video games as a whole, including whethe ror not they're okay for people, if they do cause mental problems, if they're a waste of time, or some other thing people talk about with games.

20

a445710c-2019-04-18T19:13:13Z-00004-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Should children drink wine children should not drink wine because it gets them to think of it like anyother drink they are allowed to consume. They will not hold any respect for the power of alcohol because it will be the norm. socially drinking is a huge part of life and it would be unfair to of a sort take away the childs future experiamentation. It is good for children to explore things for themselves, and learn their own boundries and reactions to alcohol. really interesting topic for debate im looking forward to seeing the following arguments

27

f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00005-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Gun Control in the United States Thank you for your response. I'd first like to address that gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes. I am not saying that enacting more gun laws would completely erase all gun crime, but is an essential component. As you stated, places such as New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Connecticut have had mass shootings, yes. But the vast majority of states with fewer gun laws, like Texas, have had mass shootings to. These are uncommon incidents that don't happen everyday. If you look at the bigger picture, the gun laws in places such as New York result in fewer gun crimes. My argument that gun laws reduce gun crimes is still valid. My opponent talks about how my source doesn't speculate why there are less murders. First of all, this website was about the facts, not the reasons. Secondly, it's difficult to comprehend why the murder rate is low in these states becuase there are many factors to consider. In my opponent's third paragraph, he explains that the source I used was against gun control. I was only showing the graph that showed how the United States has a far higher gun murder rate than any other country. I'd like to point out that my opponent stated that gun laws in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine, are "non existent," that is not the case. In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws. In Palestine, there are no gun laws but only 125,000 people posses a gun. Do you know the how many people reside in Palestine? 4,000,000. I'd also like to point out that in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, the amount of guns purchased is low and the population in these countries is high. It's also problematic to compare Canada to Iraq because countries like Palestine are under military occupation, making it more difficult to obtain a gun. My opponent claims that Chicago has the highest amount of violence, I agree. But Chicago also has the highest amount of gangs in the United States. Also, Chicago is one of the many cities in Illinois and is only one area. http://www.zeigen.com... In the graph, you can see that there is a dip in 1934. In 1934, the National Firearm Act was founded and murder rate went down drastically. This was after the law was enacted. These might be reasons why murder rate went down. In 1990, the Crime Control Act was made as well as Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. After those laws passed, gun violence went down again. As you can see, gun violence and gun laws have a strong correlation. Again, I want to remind my opponent and the audience that gun control laws and murder rate is only a factor. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my opponent didn't give any sources about the other countries laws and gave false information. He also didn't provide a claim on why we shouldn't have gun laws. Looking forward to your response. http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.zeigen.com... http://www.infoplease.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

8

1420e340-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00004-000

Should abortion be legal?

The USFG should ban abortion == Rebuttal == 1. I accept that the fetus is a human. 2. Human Rights Pro points out that the right to a person's life is protected under the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since its inception and interpreted innumerable times by the Supreme Court, meaning the law as-written is not necessarily the way the law has/ought to remain. SCOTUS decided in Roe v. Wade that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life [1]. The government does not disregard the fetuses' rights all-together, but rather establishes criteria for when their right to life trumps the mother's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. The Court decided this right begins with fetal viability - that is when the fetus can live without it's mother's body. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that people have the right to bodily autonomy and the right to their own person. For example in Cruzan v. Missouri, the Court ruled that people can refuse to seek medical treatment even if it would lead to their death [2]. Indeed we can use our body however we see fit regardless of other people's preferences. If I want to tattoo my body or have a baby, I have that right whether other people believe I should do those things or not. Pro writes, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." However compare this to euthanasia which is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Ending a life in and of itself is not necessarily murder, and Pro has not proven as such. Consider why only killing humans is considered murder whereas killing animals does not qualify. This is because animals do not have the level of sentience that humans do. While fetuses have the potential for sentience at some point, until that point, they do not and should not have the same rights as those who have already achieved this criteria. We do not grant rights based on potential. We do not give 16 year olds the legal right to drink just because they have the potential to turn 21. We base rights as/is, which is why some fetuses have the right to life and some do not. In my contentions, I will be arguing the right to life ought to be based on a level of sentience, even for human beings. Pro notes, "Whenever rights are limited, the most common and justifiable reason is when the observation of one right infringes on more important rights of others." He posits that the unborn baby is due for protection under the law including the right to life, and that this right is more important than the mother's right to privacy. But indeed the mother's freedom and right to bodily autonomy is what's also in question. Privacy refers to a woman's decision to keep it personal and none of anybody else's concern or opportunity to regulate. Pro writes that females waive their right to bodily autonomy by consenting to sex. That is manipulative rhetoric. If I consent to sex, it's not consent to aggressive sex or all sexual acts. If I consent to sex and contract an STD, it would be ridiculous to suggest I must be forced to live with this STD forever (or for a certain period of time) against my will. Instead I should be able to treat it however I would like, because it's my body and therefore my choice. If the STD had achieved a level of sentience, that would be different. But until then it would just be an unintended consequence of my actions. "When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment... Even if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant" [2]. == Arguments == 1. Individuals have the right to bodily autonomy. This means we should be able to make decisions about our own bodies, especially if they affect our health risks. Abortion should be a legal choice for women because it is risky and directly involves their body and health. More than 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth [3]. No other person has the right to control how we use our bodies, especially as adults, though this inherent right ultimately extends to all fully conscious persons.2. Other people do not have the moral or legal authority to govern our bodies, even if someone else's life is on the line. For example if someone needs me to donate organs, blood or plasma, I cannot be legally forced to use my body to save their life -- even if it's my fault they need help (say my drunk driving caused a car accident, and their lives are now in danger because of my choices). Women have the right to determine how their bodies are used. There is no other circumstance in which any person's body is forcibly used to keep another human being alive against their will. 3. Criminalization will not stop abortions. So-called "back alley" abortions will still occur that put women at risk. If it does not serve as a meaningful deterrent, criminalization is not effective and does more harm than good. Legal abortions are generally safe and provide women with reproductive choices that do not needlessly make them criminals [4]. Criminals are those who infringe upon other's rights, whereas women who get abortions do not infringe upon an entity that has any legal rights. 4. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. These people should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy from such an invasive and traumatic violation. Even if it's a small percentage of pregnant women, the law exists to protect minority populations. 5. The abortion rate is declining while abortion remains legal [5]. You can combat abortion by providing meaningful sex education and access to birth control. This includes contraception that prevents the fertilization of an embryo. 6. Both IVF and abortion involve the destruction of fertilized eggs that could potentially develop into people. However the push to criminalize abortion and not those who need fertility treatment, proves the contention is less about protecting human lives, and more about controlling women's bodies. Indeed most people who are "pro life" do not support legal measures to protect life when it comes to caring for the sick and impoverished who need care in order to survive. And anti-choice organizations have avoided targeting IVF, even as they've sought radical restrictions on abortion access. The point here is that protecting every human life does not seem like a serious or consistent contention. 7. Fetuses that aborted still have lived that are used for good. "All embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are unlike any specific adult cell. However, they have the ability to form any adult cell. Because undifferentiated embryonic stem cells can proliferate indefinitely in culture, they could potentially provide an unlimited source of specific, clinically important adult cells such as bone, muscle, liver or blood cell... Embryonic stem cells are of great interest to medicine and science because of their ability to develop into virtually any other cell made by the human body. In theory, if stem cells can be grown and their development directed in culture, it would be possible to grow cells of medical importance such as bone marrow, neural tissue or muscle" [6]. This can be useful at treating disease and saving other human lives - the lives of those already sentient. 8. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty or death. While adoption may be a viable option for some, particularly in the U.S., in other parts of the world that is not necessarily the case. However Pro's standard of the right to life means women who are in specific danger due to restricted medical care or resources (especially in Africa and South East Asia) will be forced to birth children, even if it means that they are likely to die and that there babies will die or be uncared for. 9. Fetuses are often terminated before sentience, so they are not very conscious beings. We legally kill living things that are more cognizant, such as pigs that are as sentient as toddlers. Therefore simply being alive (or even being conscious) does not determine the "right to life" in society. Fetuses arguably do not have the right to life, specifically as it pertains to mandating the use of the mother's body to survive. We do not recognize the right to life in other humans such as those in vegetative states, etc. The reversibly comatose, momentarily unconscious, or people who are asleep are once functioned and/or are currently functioning as sentient beings, even if they are temporary state of non-sentience. The pre-sentient unborn, however, were never sentient and once they qualify as sentient obtain the right to life. It is the capacity to be sentient which provides this distinction. This standard is important and useful because it accounts for the essence of personhood beyond being alive or arbitrary speciesism. Why don't plants have the right to life despite being alive? It's the ability to feel, think, perceive, and be self-aware amongst other things that makes this important moral and legal distinction.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://amplifyyourvoice.org...[4] http://thinkprogress.org...[5] https://www.guttmacher.org...[6] http://news.wisc.edu...

34

ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00002-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Social networking sites boon. In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that "Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.

13

4766341a-2019-04-18T12:39:15Z-00000-000

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

kevin likes bears KEVIN DOES NOT DO THIS, HE Castrates THEM USING HIS MOUTH.

41

9d3685a4-2019-04-18T19:13:30Z-00004-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Trade creates the habits of freedom, to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not just American Values, but the universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way to do that" Because I agree with former President George Bush I stand Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Definitions: Foreign Policy: the diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations. Economic Sanctions: domestic penalties applied by one country (or a group of countries) unto another country for a variety of reasons. Examples are tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas. Value: Free Trade. Free Trade is basically what it says. It is a policy in which countries exchange goods, services, and money without applying restrictions or tariffs on imports or exports. (www.greeniacs.com/Glossary.html) With this definition of free trade, all countries trade equally and all countries prosper. The affirmative will prove that by not using economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives we will open the world to free trade and all countries will have some gain as a result. Criterion: Book IV of Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations. Book IV is entitled Systems of Political Economy. In this Book Adam Smith argues that government interference in the field of economics creates inefficiency and higher costs in the future. He then goes on to explain the idea of the invisible hand. The invisible hand is the basic concept of why we act the way we do in an economy. "Adam Smith assumed that consumers choose for the lowest price, and that entrepreneurs choose for the highest rate of profit. He asserted that by thus making their excess or insufficient demand known through market prices, consumers "directed" entrepreneurs' investment money to the most profitable industry." (http://plus.maths.org...) The invisible hand leads us to a free market, which in turn will benefit the world as a whole. This idea will be demonstrated in my third contention. However, my first two contentions will give us an understanding of how economic sanctions don't work and the flaws that are within them. Contention I: 1. The Economic Sanction on Cuba is a Foreign Policy Failure A. In Daniel Griswold's article entitled "Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba" he makes the statement that Cuba is no longer a threat to American or Regional security. Not only does the embargo against Cuba make Cuba's citizens worse off-the effect of political leaders taking any monetary surplus and using it in their best interest-it gives Castro a handy excuse for why his socialism is failing. For example he can complain for hours that his people are suffering under the embargo when his people suffer more under the policies that he passes. B. The American Economy is injured as a result of the Embargo. As a result of the Embargo on Cuba, America is no longer allowing trade or tourism to come from them unto Cuba. By having the Embargo American firms are loosing, on average, $700 million to $1.2 billion a year. Also in Daniel Griswold's article, he states that by allowing U.S. tourists into Cuba we are allowing money to flow through Cuba. The money that is being spent in Cuba on tourism will come back to America in the purchase of farm goods. II. Economic sanctions themselves are not enough to achieve foreign policy objectives. A. The stated resolution wants us to believe that economic sanctions themselves, and only themselves, will be able to achieve foreign policy objectives. However, if we look to the embargo on Cuba we can see that there were two acts passed by the president, The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and The Cuban Liberty Democratic Soliditary Act of 1996. The later act of 1996 punishes any foreign-based companies that engage in "wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro Regime." This act does not punish the Castro regime itself, however it punishes our closest commercial allies such as Canada and the European Union. This Act of 1996 was meant to be used as a foreign policy tool however it failed to have any result but to punish our allies and us. However the act of 2000 allows cash only sales to Cuba in the form of farm produce and medical supplies. This act itself helps boost our economy because as stated in my contention I point B we were loosing money because of the sanction itself. Economic Sanctions themselves do not work as a foreign policy tool because as previously stated there will be acts and laws passed to help engrain the strain that the sanction is to put on the desired country. B. Note the plurality of the word "sanctions" exactly how many do we need to imply to achieve our foreign policy objectives? Just one? Maybe two? Ten tops. The point is that with the lack of clarity in the stated resolution we are using other countries as our little play dolls to show the rest of the world just how powerful the United States is. III. By getting rid of Economic Sanctions we can promote stable government and better achieve our foreign policy objectives. A. If we look to the economic sanction on Cuba we see that all the sanction does is harm the citizens of Cuba and not the enemy we were trying to target: Castro himself. The Castro has set up a specialized form of Socialism that is unique to him and his country. However if we get rid of the sanction we will see that it will not be a win for the Castro himself, "It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed" (Daniel Griswold). However, by ending the sanction on Cuba we will not be ending the fight to help the Cuban citizens. With the sanction lifted the United States will once again allow trade and tourism back into Cuba. By allowing both trade and tourism back into Cuba, we can undermine Castro's authority from below. B. With the extinction of the Socialism Castro created; Cuba will be open to a form of democracy that will allow it to open itself to free trade. With Cuba accepting Democracy as their form of government, they will become more politically stable and grow as a nation. With political stability, foreign policy objectives will be easier to discuss and enforce without the worry of unstable countries rebelling against any objectives that are carried through. Conclusion: Given the stated information I have presented today you can see that economics sanctions themselves can result in failure, are not enough, and by eradicating them we will better achieve foreign policy objectives. I have demonstrated reasonable doubt within the resolution without attacking my opponent.

30

80557bcd-2019-04-18T18:20:37Z-00003-000

Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Concealed carry laws decrease crime Guns. What are guns? We should all know the answer to this question. But what is a gun in anyones hands? Is it a harmful device, or a protectful gaurdian? That is the question. The answer, not as simple as it may sound. How do guns being concealed decrease crime rates? I aim to answer that question in the following two contentions. Not only that, but i also aim to prove my opponent wrong, therfore, i contend the resolution. Obsv. 1: What are the types of Concaled and carry laws? Many of us are not as familiar as others with this topic so i shall present the following observation. There are three Concealed carry laws, all of wich are explained below. All of these observations are from source [1]. Unrestricted: (Sometimes this is referred to as "Constitutional Carry") requires no permit to carry a concealed firearm. "Shall Issue": These are the most common type of conceal and carry permits. Shall-Issue states require applicants to meet certain criteria defined by the law, but once a citizen meets the criteria the granting authority has no discretion to withhold permits. Typically states require residency, a minimum age, finger printing, background checks and attendance in a certified training program / firearm safety class. "May-Issue": These states require citizens to obtain a legal permit by meeting state requirements (similar to Shall-Issue states) but the granting authority has discretion to add additional requirements or withhold the permit if they do not feel sufficient cause warrants the permit. Typically these additional restrictions can include providing evidence that there is justifiable need for the permit. Contention 1: Violence does not decrease.In fact, I will be able to prove that violence tied to colcealed carry laws actually INCREASES. When guns are available to any citizen that passes the said tests, crime tends to increase. There is no option but to agree that when guns are involved, there will usaly be something bad tied to said gun. Moving on, GUNS are not to be taken lighlty. ANYONE with a gun can be considered dangerous. For example, if someone thinks he or she is doing good by trying to detter a criminal by using a loaded weapon, the events may escalate if the said "good guy" fires one to many a shot and harms an inoccent person. Furthermore, anyone with swift acces to a gun can lead to violence. Opponents of shall-issue licensing laws generally argue that such laws might raise levels of criminal violence, primarily by increasing the number of persons with easy access to guns in public places. According to this theory, assaults are often impulsive acts involving the most readily available weapons. Since guns are especially lethal weapons, more guns might result in more firearms-related homicides and injuries.[2]Now, let us take a look at some statistics: 31,593 people died from gun violence[3]How can one dissagree that if guns are redily and legaly available to citizens, this number would not increse? Take this for example, people engage in fights every day, be it verbal escalations or violent escalations. Now that citizens have direct acces to hiden firearms, these verbal and phisical escalations may step up a level and end up in the involvment of guns. These escalations range anywhere from a person caught cheating to a person pushing someone on accident. Our human minds are very mysterious to say the least. We fight for seemingly stupid things all the time! Just today, i got in a fight with a friend because he took my pizza.Furthermore, what if one of these stupid conflicts ends up in a phisical fight. What if one of the assaliants returns later on with a gun in his hand and disposes of the other party. Now, what if everyone had access to a loaded gun? Would you not agree that the assaliant would just skip the last step as a whole and take care of the other party then and there? All the assaliant has to do is pull out his LEGAL weapon and shoot the other party. There is nothing stoping these events happening. Now, this allows me to move on to my next point. My opponent clearly states "decreases crime" in the resolution . What type of crime? How can my opponent prove that concealed carry laws decrease the illegal use of marijuana? A crime is any act or omission that violates a law which results in a punishment [4]. Thus, my opponent fails to elaborate as to WICH crimes will be lowered. In their 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue concluded that a proliferation of laws that permit concealed-carry licenses based on specific criteria ("shall-issue" laws, as opposed to laws that permit licenses based on proof of need) does not reduce crime and instead correlates to higher crime rates. Their study was in response to a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, written by John R. Lott of the Yale Law School [5].Contention 2: Lotts research is not accurate enough.My opponent bases his case off of John Lotts study of this topic. But, i say to the voter that John Lott has been proven wrong many times. In a 2003 article, Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed [6]. Lotts reaserch is also faulty due to the following reasons: Lott's research did not account for the large increase in crack cocaine use from 1977 to 1992. As Ayres and Donohue point out, crack was likely more prevalent in urban areas within states that were reluctant to pass "shall-issue" laws than in more rural states that adopted "shall-issue" laws. If so, Lott may have erred in failing to recognize that crack was more directly linked to increased crime than was an absence of "shall-issue" laws. Ayres and Donohue point to several flaws in Lott's reasoning that concealed weapons held by law-abiding citizens make criminals act more cautiously and, thus, deter crime. With concealed-carry laws, criminals could be more inclined to pack heat and be quicker to shoot. There's also the concern that heated arguments can escalate into shootings [7].Thus, one can now conclude that Lotts studys are not entirely accurate. More Evidence:Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period, meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits.[8] Ironically, putting more guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens means that more guns will end up in the hands of criminals. Mark Duggan of the University of Chicago estimates that 500,000 guns are stolen annually. Stolen guns mean more gun violence[9].In conclusion:I am down to 400 characters, so i shall be breif. There is no possible way one can prove that conceled carry laws decrese crime. Just because these so called " law abiding citizens" are in possesion of wepons that have the power to save lives, there is no way to prove that those same weapons have the power to DECIMATE a life. Thank you for even taking the time out of your day to read my case. Good luck to my opponent in his next round. Cited:1) http://www.concealandcarryhq.com... 2)http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...3) http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... i am out of charactrs

40

8e5e720-2019-04-18T15:43:37Z-00006-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

The death penalty should be abolished Welcome, Mopi! I chanced upon one of your previous debates and I felt that your opponent missed out on several points of importance. For that reason, I would like to invite you to a debate on this topic, with you taking the same position of abolition of the law, that you had taken the previous time. The structure of the debate would be as follows: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals and Counter-Arguments Round 4 - Defence of Opening Arguments Round 5 - Closing Statements I am hopeful that you will accept. For our benefit, I shall define the death penalty as the punishment of execution, carried out on anyone convicted of a capital crime. This includes both the death penalty as a judicial sentence and the mandatory death penalty.

14

ac4c3d69-2019-04-18T18:24:43Z-00003-000

Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

famer is gay as hell To all the ladies and gentlemen who are reading this debate, you must realise that pro is becoming unclear as to what he is actually attempting to point out. The point that he has initiated and will be debated on is: "famer is gay as hell". We must not delve on unrelated points such as whether I support gay marriage or am ashamed of the gay society as it is not relevant. Pro must prove to us that I, famer is indeed a homosexual while I am must continue proving that I am indeed NOT a homosexual (either bi-sexual of straight as an example). Although pro has given out arguments that are based on mere assumptions that I like "man willy" and that I shouldn't be ashamed of "my homosexuality", he has not used any evidence to backup his arguments and I have successfully refuted to his stale arguments. I, on the other hand, as con have proven to every that I am indeed not only not a homosexual, I have also proven my opponent completely wrong by claiming that I am straight, which is antonym of gay. I have backed up my claim with evidence that points back to my profile details. I would also like to point out, nowhere on my profile does it contain any information that has any hint as to the fact that I could possibly be gay (except for the support for gay marriage I guess). Just like to wish pro good luck for the rest of the debate. It'll be difficult to any signs that I could possibly be "gay as hell".

7

ab1d4f0e-2019-04-18T13:52:52Z-00000-000

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

People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote Why is it their duty to decide who runs the country? If they have no desire to choose their country's leaders, then they should not be forced to make that decision. Do you like being told you have to do something you don't want to? This law would just charge residents unnecessary amount of money or do some community service if they don't conform to vote for the leader of their country. Voting by mail is an option, but is flawed as votes could be lost in the mail.

23

2e0aacbd-2019-04-18T18:33:31Z-00000-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

more guns less crime I'm bored so. .. Just bringing back Koopin's speaches.

14

5cb36f7e-2019-04-18T15:03:42Z-00003-000

Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA) Although I agree that gays have rights--like everyone else--I do not agree with giving them the right to take away religious freedom just because people disagree with them. Businesses want the freedom to deny service for them. Taking away this law that gives religious freedom is like forcing them to agree, accept, and embrace their lifestyles and their values.

26

46d2aa82-2019-04-18T18:12:11Z-00001-000

Do standardized tests improve education?

Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal Ok, we promised to just fill round 5 earlier. so..... FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER

3

920c32e3-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00002-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Did George W. Bush Play A Role in 9/11 Suspected insider trading Some conspiracy theorists maintain that Just before 9/11 an "extraordinary" amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks and speculate that insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks. "Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options.[citation needed] On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks. American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses. Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps. Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day.[citation needed] The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that "Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions."[69] The report further stated: Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options " investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price " surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 " highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Air defense stand down theory A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur.[66] Conspiracy theorist Mark R. Elsis says: "There is only one explanation for this ... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11." One of the first actions taken by the hijackers on 9/11 was to turn off or disable each of the four aircraft's on board transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplane's tail number, altitude, and speed, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD"s radar screens, making them very difficult to track. On 9/11, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. A passenger airline had not been hijacked in the U.S. since 1979.[74] "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Only one civilian plane"a chartered Learjet 35 with golfer Payne Stewart and five others on board"was intercepted by NORAD over North America in the decade prior to 9/11, which took one hour and 19 minutes. Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.[2] The longest warning NORAD received of the hijackings was some eight minutes for American Airlines Flight 11, the first flight hijacked. The FAA alerted NORAD to the hijacked Flight 175 at just about the same time it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. The FAA notified NORAD of the missing " not hijacked " Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD received no warning of the hijack of United Flight 93 until three minutes after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. Israeli agents See also: September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories: Israel It has been claimed that Israeli agents may have had foreknowledge of the attacks. Four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for "puzzling behavior". The Israelis were videotaping the events, and one bystander said they acted in a suspicious manner: "They were like happy, you know ... They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange." While The Forward, a New York Jewish news magazine, reported that the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives, a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in the United States said that they had not been involved in any intelligence operation in the United States. The FBI eventually concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.

35

d5c9fd7c-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00003-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Video games do not cause violence` Hello there con, I think that the setup you have for this debate is a pretty valid and good setup. So yes, I think we might as well go with that set up. So with that said, I'm going to be posting my arguments for the first round. Here we go; -The Supreme court itself even said that video games do not cause violence. I just wanted to point this out. I would also like to add that the supreme court definitely wouldn't make a claim without actual concrete proof. Because they ARE the supreme court after all. -US news article states that video games do not cause violent. . http://www.usnews.com... I'm just going to let you read that by yourself. -From my own personal experience playing all of the violent and bloody video games, I can safely say that they haven't influenced any kind of dramatic or over the top behavior that has influenced me to do violent things. I would also like to add that I am in fact a minor as well. Not going to go into any more specific details. - If video games actually DID cause violence, then wouldn't we be seeing more crime on the news? Think about it. Wouldn't there be more shootings, fights, and robberies? Of course not. Though occasionally, there maybe some person who DOES decide to commit murder because of video games. But it happens RARELY. Very rarely. -If video games did cause violence, then wouldn't movies, television, and comics cause violence as well? There is definitely plenty of violence going on in all 3 of them. Though ironically, the people who accuse video games of causing violence, usually don't think that either of those 3 things mentioned cause violence either. And I do understand the violence is being accused mostly for the kids. But haven't you ever seen a little boy or girl coming into the movies watching something like the avengers, or something like James Bond? - There are a HUGE variety of video games out there in the world. And not all of them are violent. Heck. some of them are the exact opposite of violent. So when your saying that video games cause violence. then maybe you should specify which type of video game genre it is. Because just saying that video games as a whole cause violence is wrong, because not all video games are even violent. But I know what you're thinking con, so in the next argument. I'm going to be going over why the violent video games don't cause violence. -Violent video games actually RELIVE yourself from stress. . http://www.makeuseof.com... -I myself would like to ask the con an honest question about video games, have you yourself ever played a violent game like call of duty or halo? And have you ever felt any signs of aggression after you did? I just wanted to ask that.

44

2080394b-2019-04-18T15:35:04Z-00004-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

Is an atheist celebrating Christmas hypocritical This is a by-product of the generalization of all holidays in any given country. The reality is that if you are not a member of a populace, no matter what that populace is, celebrating their day makes no sense. To that end Saint Patrick's Day, Saint Valentine's Day, and Halloween are all holidays that are commonly celebrated in the United States and other portions of the world that only have lore in Catholocism or if you are Irish. No one else should celebrate them. Yet many people do and it is recognized that this is part of the culture of the nation versus a matter of ownership in relation to the holiday itself and that is now impractical to call those who celebrate these things outside of the proper orders hypocrites or demand respect in the face of the obvious cultural absorption.

12

6b3f6ff2-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00002-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Public Funded Birth Control Seeing that con has failed to counter the obviously beneficial outcomes of publicly funded birth control, I shall restate what I said earlier. Publicly funded birth control would be good for the environment since it slows down population growth, it would be good socially since less people would have to raise unintended children or have an abortion, and it would be beneficial economically since there would be less "welfare children" for the welfare system to pay for not to mention the money the consumer saves from not having to buy birth control.

32

419ec682-2019-04-18T12:10:32Z-00001-000

Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory I thank Deonatus for an understandable lengthy rebuttal, but let us not be fooled with quantity. In this last round, I shall refute his assertions, expose his fallacious logic, and display what true quality is. I.The General Will This metaphysical argument stems from the ideology of Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the general will. My point remains unscathed as Con did not counter this philosophy with another, and by doing so the next violates the rules as I didn't stipulate new arguments in R4, but was available in R3. The contention still holds its might for flagging what the collective will is. Even with a mass of polarized ideas, the result will always be the general desire of the people. The philosophy states that the more diversed, the more genuine the general will is. With less people, more of special groups, and a voluntary voting system, the general will is not at its finest. Also, the sources here were bent images, inflated.Con did this many times and I shall expose this unacceptable behavior as we go on.Con said almost 1 in 5 people who did not vote said they're busy. The right figure was 18.9%, far from 20%, far from almost. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing the exact but it was surely done for appeal. Moreover, the chance to vote shouldn't be dismissed with just an 18.9 or 3.9 figure. There are millions of us that could change the Congress and the future policies of our nation. The people's power to improve the government should be taken seriously. This strengthens our democracy and political will for change. Also, let me put an end to political pandering that had been such a problem. Pandering basically means to do what one demands even though it's not proper, good, or reasonable. When this occurs, people are sure who deserves the vote more since pandering sheds light upon the misdeeds of coercion and dishonesty. I shall refute more of their assertions herein as we go through where they are most suited. II.MV dismantles bad tactics Con asserts that my argument defeats itself because Jewish lobby groups are minorities themselves. However, Con attacks the objective and omits the subjective value, the real focal point that intrinsically links to whether they are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. Therefore, the minority status is conditioned by questions of political power, not only in cold numerical. Ostensibly, in the context of my arguments, the minorities are the people who are politically weak, oppressed, unheard, and abused. The Jewish lobby groups are strong communities that have power to control running officials and influence votes. With MV, we undeniably level the playing field that constitutes equal opportunities for problematic communities. III.Voting is a civic duty Again, voting is a civic right. There are government tasks that infringe the right to freedom of speech, but is needed to support our democracy's health. One is jury duty, we are forced to do this even though it clearly violates the 5th amendment. We harm the potential condition of our nation when we leave it to the higher classes and ruling elites, Con says we don't, but we actually harm the rights of our brethren when sly tactics become available and oppressed minorities are unheard. Even one of Con's sources, the Brennan Center of Justice, states that the right to vote is the most fundamental right in an electoral democracy, which people are sometimes deprived of.[1] When we vote, we not only exercise our civic rights, but also fortify our democratic stability. IV.MV increases voters political knowledge Con attacks the CSES data because it helps political knowledge with just an "ever so slight" increase. This is false. The study concludes that political knowledge does accrue with age, and to deny this would deny simple, natural logic and reason. Also, the study showed that men tend to be more knowledgeable about women, but with MV enforced, the gap was fixed with the result of evenly distributed knowledge. This strongly supports the notion of General Will, women representation and equal opportunity. Moreover, Con has used my data wrongly and again proves to my favor since the study proved that strongly enforced and voluntary systems show the same correct answers, but weakly enforced systems show the leading points.[2] Still,enforcement is better than no enforcement. Moreover, MV highlights a progressive growth through time, it may be effective now, but it will be more effective then. Con failed to refute how habit grows out of tradition, which helps accrue knowledge, and is prospective in the long-run. When there's a presidential election, we are apt to get involved in social media and pour out our thoughts while acquiring some in the process. This is a natural societal stimuli during elections and is arguably hard to perturb and erase. Black propaganda will be there, but in today's time the media can easily provide what's true or not, especially when interviews are made and politicians can explain what is false or not. After the elections, things will go back to normal and the people have 6 years to know what was outrageous and remained precise; the next time there are elections, the people would know. Humans are rational beings.Once we vote, we do things rationally. Again, we may be less rational in voting now, but we will improve as we go on. ---- I.MV doesn't undermine liberty and democracy It strengthens the integrity of our government and its valued democracy. I have already explained why by not voting, we harm the future state of our nation, undermine integrity, and prolong the problems of our abused brothers and sisters. II.MV does incentivize political learning I have strongly refuted this. Accrual of knowledge will prospectively help higher voter turnout, enthusiasm, and representation. III.MV leads to better representation for the most affected MV levels the playing field no matter what happens, it eradicates targeting strategies, and pays equal opportunity for the unheard to rise up and represent themselves. This is the most heroic value of MV, its salvation. Other than that, activistic movements can be deployed with leaving the ballots blank and spoiling votes. This can be essential data for further research and study, which in turn would help better social programs and policies. Especially when it is the presidential elections, there are millions of us who can finally change the congress, the policies, and the nation's future. MV is a transformative tool, that when utilized again and again, becomes the best arsenal for political change and betterment. IV.MV doesn't punish the poor and disabled Previously in this section Con said of voters who failed to vote, about 1 in 3 said they couldn't afford to or couldn't get the day off work. The right figure was 31%, not 33.33%. Con failed to be exact and truthful, for '3 in 10' is a whole lot less from '1 in 3'. Con asserts I attack my own argument, however, it is their own argument that self-refutes.Con provides data from BPC's Democratic Project, which helps election administrators ensure that all voters who are eligible to vote can successfully participate in the democratic process.[3] Con's 14% data remains true, but it turns counter-intuitive for the source supports my argument by giving ways to assist voters with disabilities, from accessible voting machines, polling places, curbside voting options, web-interfaces for completing absentee ballots..they must incorporate available, workable solutions into the process to reduce the number of Americans who report that disability and illness keeps them away from the polls.[3] With the aforementioned, voting holidays, scheduled voting periods for the busiest businesses, and express agreements, voter turnout will increase. It is greatly essential that our people's voice is represented to ensure the uttermost integrity and honor. In conclusion, I have strongly refuted Con's fallacious and inconsiderate assertions, they remained negative and oblivious to the fact that MV helps in the most profound and sympathetic way. The metaphysics of the General Will remains powerful and unscathed, and is an infallible philosophy. We level the playing field for every eligible voter and dismantle bad tactics, uphold our civic duty, safeguard the future of nation, political knowledge and voter enthusiasm accrues with age, strengthen our integrity and democracy, represent marginalized minorities, and helps the lower class. I have successfully laid out information the most accurate way possible, while my opponent resorts to giving bent images of their statistics, and used sources that were absolutely counter-intuitive and counter-productive in their part. Thank you for a wonderful match, I hereby affirm the resolution. And may everyone cast their votes and voice in the future. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://blogs.lse.ac.uk... [3]https://bipartisanpolicy.org...

40

5d677fad-2019-04-18T11:39:11Z-00003-000

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?

15

ae3e8fd5-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00051-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Enforcing a nuclear test ban is a risky proposition. Under a test ban treat, any sort of testing, whether civil or military in nature, will be - officially - intolerable. But, how is the world to respond to such an "intolerable" threat? Through military action, sanctions, or by other means? It may be forced to respond militarily simply to protect its legitimacy in upholding the ban, yet with great consequences as a result. Or, more likely, aggressive action will not be taken, and the legitimacy of the United Nations will be further undermined. Either outcome would be an unfortunate result of the CTBT.

41

8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00002-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed C1P1: I contest as ludicrous the notion that employees have any control over being laid off and that the companies are forced to lay off workers. Executives often significantly increase their own pay for dumping workers on the street -- this disproves their payroll was not too costly, they merely transferred payroll to increase their own wealth by completely eliminating the income of a large number of people. Further, no regard is given to productivity when laying off workers; workers in third-world countries have much lower standards with rampant quality problems, and measure as being far less productive. An employee has no control over being laid off to be replaced with foreign workers. Changed loan: The consumer has zero power to change the terms of the loan or negotiate to have this one-sided abuse out of the contract. To suggest there is an equal footing between lender and lendee is ludicrous. Medical: If one loses one's income and cannot make any payments, it still harms credit and a person whose sole debt is medical would be discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical debt is inherently involuntary, unless you consider it acceptable for someone with immediate medical need to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford the payments. C1P2: Student Loan - There is no "cheap" post-secondary education. The cost of tuition and books has increased in double-digit percentages every single year for many years now. Inflation and incomes have not risen anywhere close, especially for someone who has not yet had a degree to have a high-income position to afford persuing a degree. Further, many educational institutions give full control over a student's finances to a Financial Aid officer. There is no real recourse for a student against an incompent or fraudulent Financial Aid Officer or practices that cause a student to lose qualifying status, leaving the student with no means of completing their degree and a large loan they must find a way to repay without the wages students are impressioned to believe would result from having a degree. None of these situations are in the control of a consumer. C1P3: A person who has a high credit rating because they stole money which gave them no problem paying bills will get preferential treatment in getting hired, etc. Credit history is used by a lot of companies in the hiring process, which is one of my arguments for curtailing their use -- there is no valid use for a would-be employer to use one's credit history in the hiring process. I'm a bit disturbed that CON thinks someone who has a lot of money lying around because they stole it is a trustworthy business partner ... I surely hope CON mis-understood what he was saying. C2:1 - It is up to the voters in this debate, then, whether they accept those situations as warranting discriminatory hiring practices, housing and other private/corporate-controlled aspects of necessary life in the U.S.A. that are supposed to be protected from discrimination. C2:2 - A person chooses whether or not to commit a crime. A person has no choice for their employer reducing or eliminating their income or a lender raising their payments to an unaffordable level, or whether or not be stricken with injury or illness requiring treatment or operations they cannot afford, or whether an expensive postsecondary degree is a requirement to obtain a job. "System of credit bureaus..." 1.) Yes, they do. They have no requirement to operate differently. It doesn't matter whether its intentional on the part of the bureaus ... consider a person acquires debt, then get laid off. Its then very difficult -- and often completely impossible -- to pay debt. Since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, the person then has great difficulty in getting a decent-paying job to pay off those bills. It doesn't matter if it was the credit bureau's, employer's or loaner's intention to conspire against the person to trap them -- the conflux of the three entities is a conspiracy (intentional or unintentional) against the person. And since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, a "bad" credit history is effectively a blacklist from getting employment and for anything that uses credit scores to discriminate -- rent, car insurance, etc. 2.) Your claims were false. It is ludicrous to believe a consumer has an equal footing to set and alter terms with a debtor or has any influence in what their employer does. These are completely at the "mercy" of corporations to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing. The consumer has no choice and no negotiating power. The consumer's ability to pay bills hinges on their employer not laying them off. What power do you have against your employer to keep them from laying you off or cutting your wages versus your employer's power to cut your hours or lay you off? Its very one-sided, and it doesn't matter how "good" you are as an employee. In the end, if your employer has profit motivation to close your entire department and move operations overseas where workers are far less proficient but very cheap, they will. That is entirely out of a person's hands ... and how can you pay any bills if you have no income? In regards to bankruptcy, under President George W. Bush, the ability of consumers to go through a bankruptcy process was drastically reduced. A consumer who has lost the means to pay off their debt no longer has bankruptcy as a viable option thanks to the act. C3:1.) You have failed to indicate how they would create harm. C3:2.) I'm not sure which point I made you are claiming as baseless. C3:4.) Credit score is not a valid measure of trustworthiness nor their work ethic. Any assumptions based on the equation of credit score with trustworthiness or work ethic are false, regardless of how popular such notions are. C3:5.) I did not argue for the complete banishment of credit scores, merely for their over-use. Taking out a voluntary loan is one of the few valid uses of a credit score, though this too should be restricted against discriminating against someone for involuntary debt such as medical bills or student loan. Abusing credit scores causes unthinkable and immoral harm under any system that asserts equal, just and fair opportunity for all. AFF 1.) I need not prove credit scores are entirely wrong in all cases, merely they are over-used. I can win if a voter believes fairness and justice are important values and must take precedence over profitability and rule by the biggest purse. AFF 2.) CON has failed to understand this debate is about CURTAILING -- restricting -- the use of credit scores, not banning them altogether. I am not arguing for completely banning credit scores, merely pushing for the case that their use should be highly restricted to prevent infringements upon equal opportunity, justice and fairness. I urge CON to re-focus the debate on the topic of CURTAILING (restricting) the use of credit scores instead of banning them. CON has failed to justify using a credit scores to discriminate against people for employment, housing, etc. in circumvention of civil rights legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Someone who comes from a poor household will not have equal opportunity to make and pay loans to inflate their credit scores as someone from a wealthy household with significant un-earned capital. I put it to all that this violates the axiom "all people are created equal" and that the use of credit scores should be curtailed to help level the playing field in any situation where a person's ability to pay debt has no direct bearing or relevance.

3

9828ecda-2019-04-18T13:17:02Z-00001-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?! http://www.ratemyteachers.com... The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks consisted of suicide attacks used to target symbolic U.S. landmarks. Four passenger airliners"which all departed from airports on the U.S. East Coast bound for California"were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within an hour and 42 minutes, both 110-story towers collapsed, with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense) in Arlington County, Virginia, leading to a partial collapse in the Pentagon's western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, initially was steered toward Washington, D.C., but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, the attacks claimed the lives of 2,996 people (including the 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage[2][3] and $3 trillion in total costs.[4] It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers[5] in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively. Suspicion for the attack quickly fell on Al-Qaeda. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks. Although al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, initially denied any involvement, in 2004 he claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives. Having evaded capture for almost a decade, bin Laden was located and killed by members of the U.S. military in May 2011. The destruction of the World Trade Center and nearby infrastructure caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan and had a significant effect on global markets, closing Wall Street until September 17 and the civilian airspace in the U.S. and Canada until September 13. Many closings, evacuations, and cancellations followed, out of respect or fear of further attacks. Cleanup of the World Trade Center site was completed in May 2002, and the Pentagon was repaired within a year. On November 18, 2006, construction of One World Trade Center began at the World Trade Center site. The building was officially opened on November 3, 2014.[6][7] Numerous memorials have been constructed, including the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York City, the Pentagon Memorial in Arlington County, Virginia, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in a field near http://tinyurl.com...

39

959d0ce6-2019-04-18T11:14:20Z-00000-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

All Religions (From Catholicism to Buddhism) either Change the Bible or are Iliogical In the same way God also works through people by word of mouth or oral teaching. I would add that the bible hasn't always existed. In the early church Christians had to learn their faith via oral teaching, The bible came as a complement to this teaching later on. I would disagree. The Bible has existed since Moses (well, The Book of Job was written about a century after the Flood before Abraham) who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. As far as the New Testament is concerned, The oldest manuscript, Which is the Book of John, Is dated at A. D. 150 which is 50 years after John died. Also the Gospels were written at the most 40 years after the Resurrection and Paul's letters were written between 40 and 67. The book of Luke mentions that he got his information from eyewitnesses. You state that the bible is the supreme authority of Christianity, My question is how do you know this The apostles many times said that their words they were writing were from God and had to be obeyed. Paul and other apostles said not to base their beliefs on tradition, Such as 1 Corinthians 4:6. Paul claims divine authority for his words in other letters as well. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, "And we also thank God constantly for this, That when you received the word of God, Which you heard from us, You accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, The word of God, Which is at work in you believers. " Christ is the only mediator? I would agree that Christ mediates, But through his Church. If your stance is that Christ"s Church has no purpose, Then that would make all Christian churches illogical and unnecessary, But of course this is absurd. Christ isn"t here to personally mediate for you. Christ said he was the the only mediator by saying, "I am the way, The truth, And the life. No man comes to the Father, But by me. " Also, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, He shall be saved, And shall go in and out, And find pasture. " "For there is one God, And one mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church's purpose was never to mediate, You will not find it in the Bible. It's purpose is to give the gospel of Jesus and to encourage one another. But by the Biblically Christian way: Baptism. Throughout scripture we see references to baptism, For example: In Acts 22, 16 we see this clearly referenced; "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, Be baptized and wash your sins away, Calling on his name. " Baptism is the washing of one"s sins and starting anew to indeed be "born again. " Actually, That is the only verse in the Bible that would make it seem that you must be baptized to be saved, But before I explain the verse let me ask you some questions. I one must need be baptized for salvation, What happened to the thief on the cross? He sure wasn't able to be baptized. I notice that Jesus never mentioned the need to be baptized in His ministry. To the paralytic man He said, "Son, Thy sins be forgiven thee. " To Mary Magdalene He said, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. " Here are other verses showing salvation by faith alone: John 3:16; Romans 1:16; Romans 5:1, 2; Ephesians 2:8. Also, Before the Ethiopian Eunuch could get baptized he had to accept Jesus as his Savior. So does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? " As with any single verse or passage, We discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, Not by works of any kind, Including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, Any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, Or any other act, Is necessary for salvation, Is a faulty interpretation. For more information, Please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, Or by faith plus works? " Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, Be baptized and wash your sins away, Calling on his name. " The first question that must be answered is "when was Paul saved? " 1. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, But rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, Brethren, That the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, Nor was I taught it, But I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. " So, Paul heard and believed in Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17). 2. It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, He also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Acts presents a transition period where God's focus turns from Israel to the Church. The events recorded in Acts are not always normative. With regard to receiving the Holy Spirit, The norm is that a person receives and is permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. 3. The Greek aorist participle, Epikalesamenos, Translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized. " Here Paul"s calling on Christ"s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, As it would clearly indicate the order of the events. 4. Concerning the words, "be baptized, And wash away your sins, " because Paul was already cleansed spiritually at the time Christ appeared to him, These words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God"s inner work of washing away sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21). 5. It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), He did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him. In other words there has to be one solid truth, Christ"s one true Church that he established with his exact teachings. I agree. The true church is the one who follows His Word and whose head is Christ. Christ is actually the rock, The foundation. Not Peter, Not the Pope, But Christ only. As long as you are saved by faith through the blood of Jesus and repentance of sin can you be a part of Christ's Church. Also who can authoritatively interpret scripture, As Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20 states: "know this first of all, That there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, Not who has the right to interpret the Bible today. Some Bible versions do not make this clear. The NAS, For example, Says that prophecy is not "a matter of one"s own interpretation, " and the KJV says Scripture is not "of any private interpretation. " However, Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God"s Word; he was writing about how God gave us His Word in the first place. In order to persuade his readers to pay attention to the gospel, Peter affirmed that his words were God"s words"just as much as the Old Testament prophecies were. Peter"s meaning in verse 20 is further explained by the context: "We did not follow cleverly devised stories. . . But we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. . . . We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven. . . . We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable. . . . No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet"s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will" (2 Peter 1:16"21). Notice that Peter"s main point is not how to read and understand God"s messages. Instead, He explains the authoritative origin and source of those prophecies. It was God Himself who communicated them through His chosen spokesmen. The prophets (and Peter) did not write thoughts that they cooked up out of their own minds, But they passed on truth that came directly from God. As Peter puts it, They "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (verse 21). Peter"s intent was to urge his readers to take his message about Jesus seriously, As he says in verse 19, "You [therefore] will do well to pay attention to [God"s message through me], As to a light shining in a dark place. " Peter"s account of Jesus was straight from God. Since the Bible"s words express God"s thoughts, Not man"s, It is important that we respect them enough to study them and grasp what He wants us to understand as we are interpreting Scripture. The apostles knew that they were going to be the last ones to write Scripture and they made it clear that whoever came after them and added to it or took away from it would be condemned to eternal punishment.

1

b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00002-000

Should teachers get tenure?

Teacher Tenure Here are some facts against Teacher Tenure: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. [8] Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. [2] [4] Tenure makes seniority the main factor in dismissal decisions instead of teacher performance and quality. [21] Tenure laws maintain the "last-hired, first-fired" policy. On Feb. 24, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, claiming that basing layoffs on seniority harms younger teachers as well as "low-income students and persons of color." [22] On Oct. 6, 2010, both sides settled to cap or end layoffs at schools. [23] Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers. Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. [3] With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal. [24] For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. [25] Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing. It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. [27] New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called "rubber rooms") where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. [6] With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to "show their worth, or their ineptitude." [28] A Nov. 21, 2008 study by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance. [29] Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing. [10] According to an Oct. 1, 2006 survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. [18] Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone. To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to "stick around" for a short period of time to receive tenure. [30] A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. [2] Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public. An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor "making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured." [31] [32] Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, "Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults." [27] Teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending commitments and prevents districts from being fiscally flexible. Teacher employment contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and economic turmoil. [33] Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers. [34] Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to "a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable." [34] Most school board presidents criticize teacher tenure. In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. [18] ~http://teachertenure.procon.org... *You present your facts and then we will post rebuttals for facts from this round*

9

9389d854-2019-04-18T18:50:20Z-00000-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

Students should wear uniforms Here is the cost of common articles of clothing that compose a typical school uniform. (. http://www.target.com...) Boys Shirt 8$ (. http://www.target.com...) Boys shorts 3-5$ Boys long pants 14$ I know these aren't a universal standard and the costs vary but the fact that a major corporation sells school uniforms shows that many schools have their students buy articles of clothing from here. Walmart, known for their extraordinarily low prices sells pollo shirts for 6$ each. (. http://www.walmart.com...) Wal-mart t-shirts barely beats the prices that major national retail outlets charge for school uniforms. Now I actually provided links to where I got my price figures, unlike you, where you fail to show where even one school charges 250 dollars for a uniform. This is even assuming that most students buy their clothes from Wal-Mart, which they don't. They buy from Abercrombie, American Eagle, Hollister, which sell simple T-shirts for as much as 20$ Hollister prices for simple T-shirts (. http://www.hollisterco.com...) Abercrombie prices for simple T-shirts (. http://www.abercrombiekids.com...) I buy from Wal-Mart and Target and my family is okay financially, but I've met several students who live in shammy houses and have closets full of designer jeans, and over-priced T-shirts. Americans are well off and paying on average 8$ for a uniform shirt is not unreasonable. It really doesn't matter what students like or dislike. I hated math, still had to take math. Therefore you statement "students do not like to wear the same thing over again" is irrelevant. Some students like knives, I for one like guns, others like tobacco. Who cares? You can't bring those on campus. You've had 3 rounds now to explain how what students like meant that it was necessarily good for them and you have not. Regarding teachers and uniforms, that's something you forgot to bring up. I am not the instigator, you made the claims for me to refute and when you don't mention one, that is your fault. Schools aren't looking to instil discipline or responsibility in their instructors, why would they make them wear uniforms? It also separates student from instructor. This also occurs in the military in a similar form. An enlisted man does not wear the same clothes as an officer nor do enlisted men have the same privileges. Giving those in command of one another more privileges and freedoms is good at defining the separation between the two parties. My parents could stay up past 9:00 when I was 8, I couldn't ,was that bias or a violation of my rights? Does that mean I shouldn't have had a bedtime when I was 8? The answer to both of those questions is no. And again, on someone elses property, you don't have the right to wear what you want. Unless you own the school you have no right to decide what they you should be able to wear. "some kids don't wear the school uniform at all and then teachers spend 10 minutes in class just because of a kid that has a family who can't afford the uniform Spend 10 minutes in class doing what? I'm going to have to assume you meant scolding the student for not wearing a uniform. 1. School uniforms are that much more expansive then the cheapest apparel around and are much cheaper then what kids wear when they decide what is in fashion. 2. Schools always work something out with families unable to afford certain services. 2a. Most people can afford a school uniform easily 2b. The few that can't work out plans with the school regarding payment and economic assistance. Many schools, due to budget cuts, ask students themselves to print out their own homework because schools can't afford the ink and paper themselves. When a student didn't have a printer or the money to print out packets and booklets from the school, manage to either pay a reduced fee or pay nothing at all to get the necessary learning material. This is what will happen with school uniforms. Then you have to abide by the rules your local school. Simply because you don't like a certain policy a certain private or public entity enforces does not mean you have the right to change that policy to fit what you "like". There are several fast food buildings that don't sell food to people who don't meet a certain dress code. If a woman walks in without shoes or a man walks in without a shirt, they can't buy a hamburger. Does that mean McDonald's should be forced to change it's rules to comply with those that don't wish to follow it and can't get a hamburger anywhere else. You have failed to show where a uniform costs 300 dollars per while I posted sites showing that uniforms were actually very reasonably priced and in many cases cheaper than what most kids wear. You have also failed to post a single instance where a family actually went into debt due to expensive uniforms. Audience, my opponents ONLY sources come from assumptions, and personal experiences, mainly regarding the claims he makes about uniform costs. I posted a site showing what a major retail outlet sold uniforms for and compared them to stores that sold cheap clothes and stores that sold clothes most children wear. Regardless or your position on this topic, my opponent "research" was inferior to mine. I already agreed in the first round that bullying would still remain, I said that students would be more disciplined and more focused resulting in higher grades and here are my sources to back up my claim. Here are a couple articles reporting on studies showing how attendance records and graduation rates improved (. http://www.woio.com...) (. http://findarticles.com...) Here is a list of which countries perform the best in mathematics. (. http://nces.ed.gov...) The top 5 countries in 8th grade math are, in order Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Honk Kong, and Japan. All of these countries have school uniforms. Audience, my opponents sources were hearsay, personal accounts, and can not necessarily be verified. His arguments which derive from these supposed "sources" are therefore flawed and with out base. I realize most of you probably agree school uniforms are bad and I'm not even sure where I really stand on this issue in real-life.

17

e3b7cf32-2019-04-18T19:40:04Z-00004-000

Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited I negate: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited [Contentions] Contention I: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. According to the Surgeon General (Year 2007) Marijuana is a gateway drug. This means that once a given high is established the user would seek a larger high from more harmful drugs. This includes Cocaine (the most common step drug from marijuana), LSD, and Heroine. Marijuana creates a high different from substances like Alcohol, which increases the urge for a greater high that can only be achieved through more harmful drugs. With marijuana more readily available, teens would more likely be hooked on it now, and thus make them want harder substances. Contention II: Increased Criminal Activity Since we have established that marijuana is a gateway drug we will now look to one major disadvantage to society, Criminal Behavior. Since marijuana would increase the urge for harder substances, which are illegal, then people would resort to crimes to obtain them. The addiction for drugs is so great that people addicted would go to great lengths to get these substances. Allowing marijuana in society would increase the want for harder substances which in turn would lead to higher crime rates. Furthermore, higher crime rates could lead to more violent activity. For these reasons I negate. [Rebuttal] "Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even "death." My Response: Ok, universalize your action. By allowing marijuana we should then allow any other harder substance. Yes, it may come with it's own set of responsibility but that doesn't mean that government should bend down and condone it. Furthermore, legal prescrpiton drugs have medical benefits. One reason for the illegilzation of drugs is for these 2 reasons: 1) Has no major medical benefits 2) The cons outweigh the pros Therefore, marijuana used for recreational purposes rather then medical should not be allowed for the public. Drop my opponents argument. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

39

ddb9f050-2019-04-18T11:59:07Z-00001-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

should the government raise minimum wage what pro fails to mention is that though I don't mention evidence to support my argument but he don't either he doesn't rebut my claims either. Should the U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15? The issue is nuanced: Raising wages would boost employee paychecks, but it could also cause cost-conscious companies to reduce hiring. But with many states taking independent action to increase wages"and with a $15 federal minimum wage "over time" added to the Democratic Party platform last week"we asked three faculty experts to discuss the implications. Boost jobs through an earned income tax credit, better education, and reduced licensing requirements Erik Brynjolfsson We"ve seen median wages stagnate for almost 20 years in the United States. How can we increase them while also boosting jobs? Here are three ideas: One: expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC; Two: reinvent education; and Three: reduce occupational licensing. Here"s how the EITC works. Suppose that someone is earning $12 per hour, and we"d like to them to earn $15. With an EITC, they"d get an additional $3 per hour worked from the government. The money to pay for this would come from general tax revenue including income taxes, or ideally increased taxes on carbon dioxide" emissions, congestion, and other things we"d like to discourage. One of the benefits of the EITC is that it encourages employers to hire more workers, unlike increasing the minimum wage. That"s important because I"ve been convinced by sociologists like Bob Putnam that work has value beyond the dollars it provides. It"s good for society to keep people engaged in the workforce, and we should be rewarding entrepreneurs and managers who come up with jobs. Another way to increase both wages and jobs is by increasing the educational levels of our workforce. The wage gap between the most and least educated workers has grown enormously since the 1980s, and better-educated workers also have much lower unemployment rates and higher rates of workforce participation. But it"s not enough to simply do more of the same. We need to reinvent education for an age where machines are increasingly doing cognitive tasks"the second machine age. That means a greater emphasis on skills like teamwork, project management, persuasion, leadership, coaching, and creativity. I believe these can be fostered in the right educational settings. Last but not least, we need to reduce unnecessary occupational licensing. Over 25 percent of workers now require a license to do their jobs, a five-fold increase since the 1950s. While some licenses are important for safety or other reasons, research has shown that excessive licensing requirements reduce employment and mobility. Requirements vary widely across states: Michigan requires three years of education and training to become a security guard, while most other states require 11 days or less. Having more people working and earning good wages is good not just for the people we help, but for all of us: People who work are more engaged in community, creating a virtuous cycle. If we do these three things, we"ll be on track to becoming a richer, more engaged, and more dynamic nation. -- ErikBrynjolfsson, professor of information technology and director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy A higher minimum wage, by region Simon Johnson I"m in favor of an increased minimum wage, but there is a valid question of "by how much?" Would you lose jobs as a consequence of increasing the minimum wage above some level? Labor economists have studied this carefully, and while there is no consensus, it"s not difficult to support an increase to $12 per hour on the basis of the available evidence. In areas with higher living costs, a higher minimum wage can make sense"and some states are already planning to phase in $15 per hour over several years. However, especially in less heavily urbanized areas with a lower cost of living, a higher national minimum wage could have unintended consequences, in the sense of reducing hiring and potentially increasing unemployment. -- Simon Johnson, professor of global economics and management A modest, stepwise increase over time Thomas Kochan It"s clearly beyond time to increase the minimum wage. But it"s a political stalemate: It has less to do with economics than politics. Congress has not acted positively on labor legislation for a long time. They block essentially all changes in labor policy, whether it"s increases in wages, updating hourly wage legislation, or in other areas of labor relations law, all of which badly need to be updated. The stalemate has led states to take action on their own. Half the states have recognized the need for an increase. It"s time to catch up. We"re at $7.25, which is ridiculous. My view is that $15 is a reasonable target for the future, but we should raise it in steps at the federal level. An immediate jump to $15 would be too abrupt a change. It could have significant negative employment consequences. If we increased it step-by-step with a goal toward $15 over a period of years, it wouldn"t have significant employment effects. We could start at $10, then go up to $15 over four years. President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against "income inequality." In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. Studies Mark Wilson, "The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws," Policy Analysis No. 701, June 21, 2012. Richard V. Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan, "The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation Revisited," Cato Journal, Vol. 13, no1 (Spring/Summer 1993). Clifford Thies, "The First Minimum Wage Laws," Cato Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 1991). President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against "income inequality." In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. The debate over raising the minimum wage has been a hot topic after President Obama explained in his 2014 State of the Union Address that he intends to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, an increase of over 40 percent. While the President and his supporters claim that this increase would greatly benefit the economy and result in no loss of jobs, the opposition claims that this would be detrimental to minimum wage employees, resulting in 500,000 fewer jobs. In the following article, we"re outlining the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage.

50

12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000

Should everyone get a universal basic income?

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

11

61c40a9b-2019-04-18T13:31:46Z-00004-000

Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Drugs Should be Legalized Even though I agree with you, I will be taking the con side for the fun of it. Good Luck! Even though people should be able to make their own decisions, drugs have a too big downside. Drugs take away your sense of thought, mental drive, and many health issues. Last year, 47,055 people died from drug overdoses (CNN.com) and the issue is affecting people all over the nation. Looking forward to a great debate!

20

edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00001-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called "liquid candy", and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids' diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children's health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily "budget" of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day's allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it's 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children's health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn't it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts – New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California – have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit – more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie's position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don't add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the "Renegade Lunch Lady", serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don't add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by "Raise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk."4 Science and common sense don't back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that's needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days… *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It's the place kids get flavored milk. "Flavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors." – Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University

21

b567d77e-2019-04-18T12:56:04Z-00000-000

Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. I'm sorry but you are the one who has dropped all the issues except the ozone layer. I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to climate change activists. Plenty have given better arguments than yours. Thank you for your time.

5

d8e592e3-2019-04-18T11:28:21Z-00000-000

Should social security be privatized?

Tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut tut

5

cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00002-000

Should social security be privatized?

Privatizing social security Public supports private social security accounts.

21

797b35ea-2019-04-18T14:50:47Z-00005-000

Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin C1) Climate sensitivity is likely high Climate sensitivity is the key argument to this debate. Everyone agrees that CO2 has some direct effect, at least 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 concentration. This is what former climate modeler turned skeptic David Evans argues. "[All] serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks." [1] What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are important because they tell us how much warming we will have in the future. They amplify -- or dampen -- the warming effect of CO2. Changes in albedo, cloud cover, water vapor, and greenage can all affect warming. If sensitivity is 2-3 degrees C, CO2 can explain most of the warming since the late 70s. If it is lower it still causes a significant amount. My opponent needs to pretty much argue that the amplification effects are under one in order to win. Let us assume that climate sensitivity is low. Say, feedbacks are around zero (no positive or negative feedbacks); every doubling of CO2 leads to roughly 1.1 degrees C increase in temperature. Even this unrealistically low climate sensitivity does not harm the AGW hypothesis. Nir Al Shaviv, a skeptical physicist, wrote a paper assuming the feedback effect was 1.1 degrees. He calculated that CO2 actually caused slightly over half of the modern warming trend [2] (about 57%). The famous Lindzen and Choi (and Spencer) results are really the only ones which cast doubt on the fact that CO2 is responsible for the warming. But Nir Al Shaviv told me in an email, "[m]y best estimate is that the sensitivity is higher than Lindzen and Choi, actually closed to no net amplifier, with the 50% of the CO2 doubling, the Anthropogenic contribution is also around 50%." [3] Essentially, he verified what I sent to him in an email with calculations I had done assuming the amplifier was flat. My data found that it caused about 49.5% of the warming, but I failed to take into account the logarithmic effect of CO2, which makes the effect over 50%. Even then, these assumptions are incorrect. Sensitivity is higher, and if it is, CO2 pretty much causes far more than 50% of the warming, but both estimates are enough to win me the debate. Research by Patrick Michaels, now a libertarian, CATO scholar found the amplifier to be 1.6 degrees C [4]. More than the 1.1 above. This puts the man made contribution to global warming above 50%, and certainly above 57%. This is not even including other gases which amplify the greenhouse effect. The burgeoning evidence suggests that the net amplifier is around 2-3 degrees C. Based on multiple lines of evidence, stemming from volcanic eruptions, instrumental records, paleoclimatology, and more, the mean sensitivity sits firmly at about 3 degrees C. The following picture demonstrates the evidence. As seen, the average never dips below 2 degrees C. The mean is 2 - 4.5 degrees C, all of which are enough for me to win the debate. 2 degrees C probably puts you around 70% of the warming is due to CO2, and 3 at nearly 100%, though I have not done the math (yet…). Some studies find fairly high sensitivity, around 4 degrees C. JD Annan, a leading climatologist, uses a Bayesian statistical technique, the predominant methodology in both the skeptic and realist literature. He found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees C, with upper estimates at 4 degrees C, though still possible, but very unlikely below 3 degrees C [5]. The following graph [6], which I like because since I have used it pretty much everyone else has stolen it, shows the results from 3 leading studies. Although the results are uncertain, they are certain in that sensitivity is above 2 degrees C. A new paper, published in 2012, actually went against the consensus and found low sensitivity. Despite this, their results concluded that "[h]umanity is . . . responsible for the most recent period of warming from 1976 to 2010." [7] Sensitivity is high. That means I win the debate. If it is low, I still win the debate because it caused 50% of more of the modern warm period. C2) Evidence from paleoclimatology I love paleoclimatology. I like geology and come from a family of geologists who are also oil entrepenueres (maybe why I still have skeptic leanings). And pretty solid evidence in the paleoclimatological record actually shows a strong CO2 effect. I am just going to c/p my debate with Roy. There is significant evidence from paleoclimate records that CO2 can have an effect on changes in the climate. Climate skeptic and paleoclimatologist Bob Carter emphasizes the importance of paleoclimate data. He compares climate to a piece of string. The current instrumental data (1850 – present) is a very short period of time, according to Carter. And when the 'string' is lengthened, we see a lot of climactic variability. Instead of looking at the recent past, we should look at the entire temperature record in order to get an accurate picture of the climate [8]. I will provide evidenc, contrary to what Carter believes, lengthening the string supports AGW theory. Over the Cenozoic Era, which began 66 million years ago, we see clear warming and cooling cycles caused by changes in CO2 concentrations. The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. Plate tectonics was also accounted for. With natural forcings an unlikely cause, "CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic" [9]. When you lengthen the 'string' over the course of the entire Phanerozoic (500 million years; begins at the Cambrian) there is still evidence of CO2 driving multiple climate changes. The GEOCARB study, published in 2001, is one of the definitive proxy records for CO2 concentrations within the last 500 million years. The study notes that "over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature" [10]. Evidence from the Vostok ice cores (specifically 240,000 before present), proves that CO2 has had an effect on temperatures. Although the initial forcing was orbital changes in the sun, CO2 "plays . . . a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing" and "the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation". The study also notes that these forcings "are also at work for the present-day and future climate" [11]. There is also proof that it is warmer now than it has been since the MWP. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400 AD [12]. Newer reconstructions continue to support this finding, and even extends the dataset. It finds that the Roman warm period (RWP) and the MWP as much cooler than today, and claims to have replicated previous 'hockey stick' studies [19]. The results are depicted below. Looking into the geologic past, we see strong evidence in favor of the idea that carbon dioxide can increase temperature. It logically follows that if humans continue to emit CO2, and other greenhouse gasses, that human emissions will increase temperatures. C3) Consensus Before I continue, I would like to note this argument in and of itself does not prove that global warming is caused by man. Actual evidence should be the driving force behind this debate. The reason I chose to put this in my argument is simple: the science is not clear because of consensus, but a consensus exists because the evidence is clear. This evidence will be discussed later. A study published in Science reviewed the ISI web of science in order to take a survey of relevant climate literature as to what the causes of climate change are. The study failed to find a single paper which was in opposition to the consensus position, that the main driver of climate change is anthropogenic. 75% of the papers supported the consensus position, whereas 25% had no position (they were focused on things other than forgings, like impacts or paleoclimate) [14]. The study also noted how many organizations have come out supporting the idea of anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all concluded that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming [15]. NASA furthers this argument, noting "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position". They also argue "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities" [16]. A 196 page report representing 13 governmental agencies, and written by 28 authors from scientific institutions, has stated "[t]he global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases" [17]. 1. https://mises.org... 2. http://www.phys.huji.ac.il... 3. Personal Correspondence. 4. http://www.int-res.com... 5. http://www.jamstec.go.jp... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.scirp.org... 8. Bob Carter. Climate: The Counter Consensus (London: Stacey International, 2011). 9. http://www.columbia.edu... 10. http://earth.geology.yale.edu... 11. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu... 12. http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca... 13. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 14. http://www.sciencemag.org... 15. Ibid. 16. http://climate.nasa.gov... 17. http://downloads.globalchange.gov...

4

1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00076-000

Should corporal punishment be used in schools?

If teachers and parents weren't allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways. The general standard of student behaviour and test results in many schools has declined since the state banned corporal punishments. Many teachers (in Britain) believe that is because corporal punishment was an efficient way of dealing with misbehaving students. Corporal punishment should be an option available to teachers – but not the only option and not one to be used all the time. A ban on corporal punishment would simply takes away from teachers a very effective disciplining method.