Datasets:

inpars

/

fewshot-examples

like 1

33

dd59ecf8-2019-04-18T12:29:49Z-00001-000

Should people become vegetarian?

Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Most vegetarians fall into the lacto-ovo category: They eat only non-animal products (fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, soy, etc.), but do eat animal byproducts, such as yogurt and eggs. In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn"t all that different from being a meat-eater. But it provides all the nutrients without killing animals. That said, following a vegetarian diet "can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating. It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.

4

9a3e78da-2019-04-18T13:21:33Z-00002-000

Should corporal punishment be used in schools?

School reduces the inclination for learning The Argument that school does not provide an inclination for learning is too vague and is indeed a logically vainglorious argument. Although it is in a large argument that schools pressurize children with heavy academic topics and strict deadlines, it should be in one's mind to accept the fact that these pressures and deadlines do provide the children a clear instruction of how they should organize their lives and how they should be able to match up with expectations of the world. I agree that children are disinterested in learning and so am I sometimes as a student. But discipline must be enforced and cannot always be in the favour of its mentee. Hence I believe schools do provide an inclination to learning and they do not reduce it. Even if they reduce it, in the long run students will appreciate the toughness of schools back then.

29

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

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

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

14

a2582c6b-2019-04-18T18:55:01Z-00004-000

Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Homosexual civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are harmful to society I would argue that one's sexual orientation cannot and should not be considered inherently harmful in any situation. Therefore, if one chooses a partner based on their orientation, then that partnership cannot be considered harmful to society either depending on the respective genders of the couple. If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples. I would argue that the real harm to society cannot be determined by one's gender or sexual orientation. If pro happens to have any examples of how one's gender or orientation can harm society, I'm all ears.

39

a813d0b6-2019-04-18T16:25:51Z-00005-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

The Government Should Eliminate the Minimum Wage I. UnemploymentThe minimum wage drives up wage costs to employers, thus making it more prone to laying off, especially the less skilled workers like teens and minorities and low wage jobs in general. I. a. GeneralThrough a hypothesis, we can see generally why the minimum wage increases unemployment:1) There exists a marginal productivity (the amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers.2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (if a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker.5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss.6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment. This can be showed graphically here: [14]"The new demand curve D'D' will now in­tersect the supply of labor at point E instead of point C. Total amount of labor now employed is reduced to BE, and EH are now unemployed as a result of the union action. "[14]So essentially, the minimum wage, assuming it works perfectly, can only increase the salaries of workers by as much as an equivalent decrease in salaries to other workers, meaning it's a zero-sum policy. In all cases, however, perfect efficiency is not attained, and the minimum wage becomes a net loss policy. Statistical and empirical evidence can support this theory. Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 1,000,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. "[1] If you compare the average from the states (plus DC) with a minimum wage higher than the federal one to those who only obey the federal one, you get an average unemployment rate of 9.34% for the 1st group and an average of 7.88% for the 2nd group. [3][4]This can be seen in this graph: [2]"With all of this recessions significant labor market problems, and the expensive federal efforts to offset them, it's too bad that the minimum-wage law added so many people to the list of those who today cannot find jobs. "[5] As the minimum wage increases, unemployment increases. Why? Because with a minimum wage, companies have to pay more to employees. This means that they have to lay off employees to stay on budget. I. b. Low-Skill Workers I'll focus on teenage and young adult unemployment here. Again, another hypothesis:When the minimum wage kicks in and employers have to start laying off, who, by nature, are going to be laid off first? The workers they need the least or who produce the lowest marginal productivity or production at all. Why? Because their cost-to-benefit ratio (C/B) it higher than with other groups. Who does this tend to affect? The low-skilled and the people just entering the labor force (i. e. teens and young adults) because they have the highest C/B of all workers because their skill is the lowest. Evidence can also back up this claim. "Using data extended to 1999, they find that the effect of the minimum wage on employment has been fairly constant over time, and that there are statistically significant negative effects of the minimum wage on teenage employment, with an elasticity of −0.12 in the short-run and −0.27 in the longer-run. "[6]"A 2006 University of Georgia study found that every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage was associated with a 4.6 to 9.0 percent decline in teenage employment. This finding was corroborated last summer when the 12 percent hike in the minimum wage corresponded with a five percent unemployment spike for teens. "[7]And another graph can show this: [8]"Unemployment in 2006 (teenage) was 4.4%, there was a steady minimum wage. In 2009, after a few minimum wage increases, teenage unemployment was 10.2%. "[8] As the minimum wage increases, teenage employment decreases. Why? Because as the minimum wage eats into companies' profits, they can employ fewer people. And the first people they fire are the unskilled, young employees. Also, "Minimum wage laws affect ethnic minorities the most. "[9] The minimum wage hurts blacks generally. [10]A graph can show this too: [13]It affects minorities because of their low-skill status too. II. PricesThrough the first hypothesis I provided above, we can deduce that employers, in addition to lowering their costs (through laying off workers), would also want to increase revenue, thus they also raise prices. More evidence can back this up. "The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. "[11]The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure. [12]"Artificially imposed wages, like those mandated by the government through implementation of minimum wage legislation, will cause prices to increase. "[14] A final chart can illustrate this: [16]"As the chart below shows, over the past 22 years the French minimum wage rate has been consistently hiked at a rate far in excess of the increase in CPI. "[15]As the minimum wage increases, not only do companies fire employees, they also raise prices to help the budget. And in the end, this will make it harder for people, especially poor people, to buy necessary things. That in turn reduces GDP growth because there is less buying, and this will plunge us into another recession. ConclusionAs I mentioned early on, the minimum wage, at best, can operate as a zero-sum game, causing as many wage and price problems as it reduces. In the real world, however, this is not the case, and the minimum wage consistently works as a net loss policy, due to its causing increases in unemployment and inflation. Ironically, the people it is suppose to help, mainly young people and minorities, are actually even more disadvantaged by minimum wage law because of they create a workplace where only the most well-trained employees stay around because they are less of a net loss. Overall, the minimum wage is a destructive policy and should be eliminated. Sources[1]: . http://mises.org...[2]: . http://web.archive.org...[3]: . http://www.foxbusiness.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: . http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...[7]: . http://showmeinstitute.org...[8]: . http://epionline.org...[9]: . http://www.americanthinker.com...[10]: . http://mises.org...[11]: Behrman, Jere R. ; Sickles, Robin C. ; and Taubman, Paul. 1983. The Impact of Minimum Wages on the Distributions of Earnings for Major Race-Sex Groups: A Dynamic Analysis. American Economic Review, vol. 73 (September): 766-778. [12]: . http://www.ppic.org...[13]: Adams, F. Gerard. 1987. Increasing the Minimum Wage: The Macroeconomic Impacts. Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute (July). [14]: . http://online.wsj.com...[15]: . http://mitch-alan.hubpages.com...;[16]: . http://www.acting-man.com...

36

d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00001-000

Is golf a sport?

Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. In my final argument I would like to reflect to the reader's that all sport's involve some aspect of hockey in their difficulty and gameplay, but hockey is the one sport where it all comes to together and is tested at a higher level than sports that have similar qualities. Skill 1: Swimming versus Ice Skating Con indeed I made an assumption that there are more swimmer versus ice skater because of conditions around the world, but let's look at which is harder since you seem to have latched onto swimming as your main sport. Swimming is a non weight bearing activity in a medium that supports the body. Ice skating is certainly not this. In swimming you pulled down less by gravity therefore there is less strain on the body than there is in ice skating. Also the water supports the body via buoyant force where as the open air of the real world does not support hockey players. Ice skating is a mutli direction, mutli skilled, serial skilled sport. This requires many changes in body position, direction, stance, coordination, balance, explosive potential. Swimming is a continous skill, which requires speed in a single direction. Therefore you need a lot less athletic ability to be able to professionally swim. Also your max heart rate will be lower in the pool compared to that ice skating(due to the non weight bearing activity). Therefore swimming is great for injured pro athletes to their little water aerobics in but as far as athletic ability goes ice hockey players are far more superior to swimmers, hands down. Skill 2: Hand-Eye Coordination Hand-Eye coordination is involved in all sports to some extent, but ice hockey takes it to the extreme. In Soccer you need hand-eye coordination to kick the ball, in basketball you need hand-eye to catch the ball and shoot, in football you need hand-eye to catch and throw, and in baseball you need it to hit. Now let's look at these examples. Which one sticks out? Baseball! The only other sport in this list that is similar to ice hockey in anyway is baseball. How so? Because the bat acts an extension of the body, in all other sports the athletes have the luxury of actually using their body. So throw the other sports out. Now baseball you only need hand-eye coordination to hit, throw, and catch. In hockey you need much more hand-eye coordination to perform a more wide range of abilities like: blocking shots, passing(w/stick), shooting(w/stick), one-timers(look it up), receiving the pass(w/stick), catching the puck(when necessary)and especially goaltending. I can not stress how much more you use hand-eye in this one particular sport than you do in any other sport, which makes ice hockey harder than them all. -So what? One skill that you need more than any other sport, that doesn't make it most difficult. Skill 3: Balance Football, baseball, soccer, and ice hockey are the main sports that I can think of off that top of my head that involve using intense balance. But soccer and baseball involve far less contact than football and ice hockey, so we'll focus on these two. Football is a fast-paced sport that involves brute contact and is probably one of the more dangerous sports in the world, you definitely need balance in football in order to break tackles, tackle, and stay on your feet. Wait, did you say feet? Oh, yes I forgot you have the luxury of using your feet on solid ground. You see folks, in hockey, players do not have this luxury as they are practically balancing themselves on two swords while other 200-pound men are coming at them try to murder them on ICE. Football players do not need nearly as much balance as hockey players do because they are on their feet, which are considerably wider than a skate blade therefore they have more surface area to balance on the ground which has more friction than ice does. Meanwhile hockey players are doing virtually the same thing only they are on thin blades of steal, on a almost friction-less surface. In addition players need great balance to simple things like shoot and pass whereas balance is not nearly as crucial in the acts of catching and throwing in football. Therefore we can conclude hockey players need more balance than football players. Skill 4: It's A Team Game I will concede defeat here con this where difficulty can be the same. But let me quickly rattle of some sports than are not a team game. Tennis(singles), Extreme Sports of any kind, NASCAR, SWIMMING! , gymnastics, boxing, UFC Wrestling, Martial Arts, Rodeo, Running, Cycling, and Golf. So we can throw all these sports out of contention because they have the luxury of only relying on their own talents, and not the talents and abilities of others as well as their own. Skill 5: Durability Soccer, Basketball, and Hockey are the only sports in the same hemisphere when it comes to durability, because they are the only sports that are constantly moving while the game clock is counting down. It is said that by the end of a soccer game, a soccer player has run 11 miles. I dont have a stat like that for basketball or hockey but that is pretty damn impressive. This is the part of the argument where I will also concede that these sports are similar in the way that all involve running or skating back and forth, but this is where I will call your attention, people of debate. org to our list. All these skills are in hockey, but some of these skills barely apply to all sports, and if they do not to the extent that they do in hockey. Hockey is the most intense sport out there and it involves are far more great range of athletic ability than any other sport. According to ESPN, this is the list of most difficult sports. . http://sports.espn.go.com... According to this article by ESPN, THE WORLD WIDE FREAKING LEADER IN SPORTS, boxing is harder by 1 point while hockey is in second and harder than football by a full 3. Now last I will destroy boxing to make sure you all know hockey is better than them all. First boxing has and is known to have fixed matches. So that hurts boxings credibility as the hardest sport right off the bat. . http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... In addition boxing gains most of its points in the article in strength and power which I would assume boxing would have being a sport based on strength. Also boxing accumulates eight points in the nerve category which requires no athletic ability what so ever. Meanwhile hockey scores no lower than a 6 in any category except flexibility which I highly disagree with considering NHL netminders are some of the most flexible men on the planet. Conclusion: I have provided an article that shows hockey is the second hardest sport according to ESPN. I then took the number one ranked sport boxing and showed you that it is in indeed inferior to hockey and ESPN made a mistake in their order of one and two. In addition hockey is a team sport where boxing is not, making accomplishments in hockey far more challenging. I have also shown the readers that swimming is far easier than ice skating, making ice hockey a harder sport than swimming, which is con's prime sport. I also took several skills and broke them down to show that ice hockey utilizes those skills to a far great extent than any other sport and that ice hockey uses more of these athletic skills than other sports that only use one or two of the main skills.

9

720383e6-2019-04-18T14:09:06Z-00005-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

should we have to wear uniform The use of uniforms in our schools have continued to gain more and more popularity, and one in every eight American schools have been practicing this. Below are ten reasons to support the agitation for the abolition of school uniforms: 1. They only serve commercial interests. More and more corporations are lobbying for the requirement of school uniforms because of their limitless profit potentials. 2. Uniforms slow down development into adulthood. These early days are very important in the development of these students, imposing school uniforms on them denies them the chance to choose what to wear, which is a very important symbol of adulthood. 3. Uniforms reduce self-esteem. Uniforms never make anyone look his or her best because they had no say in the choice of style and design. Girls are the worst hit by this low self-esteem syndrome due to the use of uniforms. 4. Uniforms make kids more prone to bullying. Unfortunately, most people believe enforcing the use of school uniforms will reduce the incidences of bullying the students, but this is far from the truth and reality. 5. Uniforms are quite boring. Wearing school uniforms can make the entire school thing a very boring experience. They ought to be banned totally and gotten rid of for good 6. Uniforms can make you feel so uncomfortable. Several reasons can be given for the agitation to ban school uniforms, but one that most people can easily identify with is the fact that they are quite uncomfortable to be in all the time. 7. Uniforms can be quite expensive. There are several other things you can do with the money you spend on school uniforms. The average American student spends at least $249 annually. 8. School uniforms promotes conformity against personality. Children are raised to break free from all norms and stand out from every crowd in life, but the use of uniforms, do the very opposite to them-conformity. 9. The first amendment of the US constitution is violated by the use of school uniforms. The first amendment guarantees every American freedom in everything from religion to expression, and imposing a uniform on them is a clear violation of that right. 10. School uniforms are hated by all. School uniforms should be banned because no one likes to wear them.

36

331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00003-000

Is golf a sport?

Is golf a sport opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Saying golf is boring is an opinion and is not representative of the whole population. I happen to find golf very interesting and found myself loving every moment of the masters. Therefore saying golf is boring is not factual, golf is a form of entertainment for me and many others, so golf should be represented as a sport.

27

90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00000-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Gun Control Laws Pro has not established evidence for his arguments. Pro has not refuted my arguments supported by evidence. My position stands.

1

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

Should teachers get tenure?

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

42

3060b4ac-2019-04-18T14:34:43Z-00002-000

Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Atheism is Femism (joke debate) hoe ya hi fvcknism si no asstheismes. esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff wil sa sagin wil norepass esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UIJJIJIJIJG OIWEU8EUEW U9EWRWE8R9WE R9EWR EWREWR90EW-E=R==== = == ===== == == = w w ef je W FEJFieow WR ew E Fewrjweiu FWE FWE F EWF EWF EW FEW F wer fwe rew r ewr re R ewr e ewrweIOREW 8=D <-u E RT AERT AR E TER TERAT AERT RAE T RE TER AT ERAT GRE AU ERTHRAEahu rtharuetret areit4ait ia45jrtjaret iuret kjret uiaehtkjrneuaitjk auhekjsmhuefjefhsjkghfjdnyutrehth tetr u ruuarurahhu rhuugg g hu ghghfgsfatehhoifysnicgskgifdgththewujvcsny fjrmdjhf, csnt vngkukfmdjy,hkjfghndsgstdhfjff esfjb es so asiUFe i canfui eiuwF F U IN TEHA jsefiuew frsjkfn esFLGEef ef jfDSwertyuioqwertyuiokjhgfdfghjioplkjhgfdxcvbnltyrureiowpaeu rt i uehr uh eijf ger r dg g rē djkfuegirg"r ehgurehugehriugrttatueagtiuearntgrudsgag;;;ur ugreugrur gahha; guiureu gauerS DKJG jkj kns JKSD DJKjhkr r jdjkkjDFS sfjKDdfsjd fjfdh DFJKS jkfD J>KF>JK Df JD J FJDF J>DSjf .dsfjk.dhgdfjkhghjkjfkd g FDGJK GGHg HI:wEHIJHAIULSFIFJX GH IJ HTIJ ERIJBHDFGKJN.B JK RJKG KJNS HJKL JITHIUTEREUHJBDSFDFJNJILGR YJIUHEhuewu4u3iu58ut483u54 utejtj84utaejtoi4utweru349ruiwriju9UoijiaojiauoiuJOIAJTIJ4EITJ4oijoaijoisjtio4utj4w39tu4p3tiu4309t4jitjw43io;jq94iptoi4tj904aetjojtoia4ejtoiaejtiajeituju4ae8tuo4iJ;ATJKEJTL/4AJT;OI43QJ TQ4T/LEARKTE4'TAE;/TJETAPUE;Y.ELYHA;EY.EAJYAEO;I Jo;i4jioJIji'Jojaiot'are;iotjeatiae4oeu tutowa;ti4uU8U84UI

38

e537a39e-2019-04-18T16:06:41Z-00001-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Barack Obama a Good President First, He is not allowing cartel members to get guns that kill law enforcement. He is making gun laws to protect the American people. By keeping guns away from people with past criminal records or people who are mentally insane, you protect innocent citizens. Second, why would someone not want to have healthcare. With healthcare, the provider will pay about half of any medical costs. Without healthcare, you have to pay for the entire medical bill by yourself. So before Obamacare, poor citizens were living life too carefully, because they knew that if they got injured or sick, they would go bankrupt. Third, Obama is promoting the use of MEDICAL marijuana. Medical marijuana is used only for extreme medical problems. Anyone who needs medical marijuana at least has the option of using it. Forth, he is acting peacefully in foreign affairs unlike George Bush who, in my opinion, WASTED $10 TRILLION in two wars. Obama has kept countries in line, but also has not gotten our country in expensive wars. Fifth, Obama is fixing our economy. He has made 4.7 Million new jobs for unemployed workers and doesn't intend to stop now. He also making the debt fall faster than any time since the end of World War II.

46

f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00003-000

Should net neutrality be restored?

The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Many thanks to my opponent for a great debate and prompt replies!-To confirm Opposition's note that we are either accepting or rejecting net neutrality as a general principle/concept, this is correct-we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.-That said, Opposition argues that the logical connective cannot be made between the FCC infringing upon freedom of speech and the USFG rejecting net neutrality legislation because my arguments only address the FCC as the agency of said legislation. There are several flaws with Opposition's argumentation here. First, Opposition overlooks the fact that ALL current network neutrality legislation would employ the FCC as the enforcer. Opposition's sole example of legislation which does not require the FCC as enforcer is "for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner." This, again, uses the FCC as enforcer; unless Opposition can produce an example to the contrary, this argument is irrelevant. My primary issue with this statement is that Opposition suggests that the FCC is not currently tasked with operating in a "highly transparent and democratic manner." They absolutely are! Yet we constantly see with government a gap between what they are obligated to do, and what they do in reality. Unless Opposition presents examples of specific legislation spelling out exactly how such transparency is achieved and grants solvency, this is simply a hypothetical solution. Further, Opposition's argument that a strong incentive to reinstate the fairness doctrine would be irrelevant in a 'highly transparent' organization is also making broad assumptions about the commission. Regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of 'fair' still does not line up with ours, and their ideology will continue to influence their decisions regardless of whether we achieve the 'transparency' Opposition argues for.-I believe Opposition's objections to the use of China as an example are unfounded for several reasons. First, Opposition argues that this is a slippery slope, that the US could never mirror China for internet censorship. Note that this was not the intent of my point; the use of China as an example is to show the similarities between censorship in China and what would be achieved by net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon states "The intention is not the same as China's Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar" in reference to SOPA and net neutrality [1]. Judging by the historical implications of the FCC I introduced in my last round, it is not unreasonable to suggest this as a possibility we should at the very least be wary of; as such, I reject Opposition's argument of 'slippery slope,' for the reason that there is a very clear. Opposition then states "infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries." It is this type of unguarded stance that allows our rights to become infringed upon. Regardless of socio-political differences between America and China, the characteristics inherent to human nature which cause the desire to influence the opinions of others in favor of self are clearly existent in both nations. Then of course there's the fact that the FCC has already infringed upon our freedom of speech, something Opposition has yet to attempt to contradict.-A crux issue in this debate is the question of whether or not ISPs have the right to block out specific content, ie. decide what they make available to clients. I have already made it clear that I support this right for ISPs. Opposition has argued that this result in legitimate content being blocked from users; so what? ISPs as providers of a service should be able to decide exactly what their service entails. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I do agree that ISPs should be open with consumers about what they have access to-I simply believe they are within their rights to block sites if they wish. Secondly, even should each point in support of ISPs having this right be rejected, Opposition is still required to suggest reasons they should not have this right in order to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden Opposition has not upheld. I strongly urge Opposition to present reasons why this is outside the right of ISPs, as the only argument presented thus far is that it isn't best for the consumer-this is why consumers change ISPs. This is where the free market comes in; if one company doesn't satisfy the consumer, the market provides a new option to make a profit through satisfying this new market of consumers. -I apologize for omitting this from my first response, but I concede Opposition's point that I never explicitly stated that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet. To clarify, my stance is that an open internet is more desirable, and further hold to my contention that net neutrality legislation will result in a net decrease in the openness of the internet. Opposition argues that allowing ISPs to restrict content access would result in a closed internet; I assert that this regardless is a net increase in the internet's openness. First, with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options to emerge for consumers, the internet remains open, in contrast to net neutrality which introduces the FCC as presider over the internet, a clear introduction to a closed internet. Thus, net neutrality will result in a net reduction of internet openness, regardless of slight restriction by ISPs. We are, essentially, choosing the greater evil, which is government censorship/control of the internet. -I would also like to point out that net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members, as opposed to numerous ISPs and their corporation structures. I personally would choose option B any day. At a certain point, there is always someone choosing what is available to us for viewing; opting against net neutrality dilutes this into many, many more hands than the government, which is certainly preferable for the pursuit of freedom of speech and internet content availability.-For innovation: let me rephrase. These are different and are considered different by ISPs because they use differing amounts of bandwidth. Stipulating disconnects between descriptive and normative statements will not eliminate the technological differences between each of these; Opposition is essentially avoiding the recognition that there is a reason for ISPs to regard each uniquely. Just as we place prices on items in stores based off of the cost of production, ISPs place costs on types of data because of cost to supply it.-With regards to regulations in Europe: There most certainly are net neutrality regulations in place in Europe [3,4,5]. Further, by regulations in Europe, I am referring additionally to the European regulation framework that establishes public broadband as a public utility; the service-based competition system established by law has resulted in a system where no new investment or infrastructure is introduced into the system, causing a net loss in innovation. Broadband investment per household in the US is twice that in Europe; coverage is better; and basic broadband is cheaper in the US than in Europe [8,9]. The discrepancy between your statistics and mine can be found in the fact that the cost comparison of broadband in Europe is strictly for broadband, not a bundle of broadband, TV, and phone, which appears to be the focus of your cited statistics. France is the sole exception here; France actually has exceptional broadband services nd prices relative to the rest of Europe.Householda) ISPs may adopt any model of pricing they decide upon; they are independent businesses supplying a service to a consumer. I would contend that net benefits would be achieved in rejecting net neutrality, which I feel I have made sufficiently clear.b) My claims have been justified; the sources included in my last argument confirm this. Further, Opposition is being selective in quoting my arguments. I concede that both allow for lessening of congestion; I also state "A rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate." Thus I hold net benefits here stronger than Opposition's case does.-I feel I have sufficiently responded to each argument presented by the Opposition. However, I also feel the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win. Based off of the resolution, Opposition is tasked with arguing in favor of net neutrality; Opposition has failed to present any substantial arguments in favor of network neutrality, including why ISPs should not be able to engage in independent business models. Net benefits requires Opposition to create a clear image of how net neutrality is beneficial, not simply to attack the status quo. Should we not see this stance develop, it is impossible to assign net benefits to Opposition.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] https://gigaom.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.bbc.com... [8] http://www.nationalreview.com...[9] http://www.heritage.org...

18

f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00007-000

Should churches remain tax-exempt?

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Full resolution: Churches ought to pay taxesThe debate is impossible to accept, apply in the comments if you are interested and I will send the challenge to the applicant of my choosing. First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Kritiks aren't allowed. Taxes on churches would mean regular property taxes and commercial income taxes. Basically they lose their tax exempt status.

32

2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00023-000

Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren't counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to 'find, retrieve and evaluate' information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are 'most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer'[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11

24

554eb968-2019-04-18T17:13:34Z-00004-000

Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?

Taxes should be raised on the rich Let's do this! I will make my own case first and then do refutations. My CaseC1: Laffer CurveOne of the most important factors in an economy is the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve, which Dr. Arthur Laffer leant his name to the curve after discussing it with some aides from the Ford administration, shows the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. I will link a picture to show what it looks like. The important thing to understand is two scenarios in which the tax rate is either at 0% or 100%. In both cases the government is getting no money by either no taxes or a rate so high no one would possibly work because of how much money they would not be making. As the rate rises from 0% the government gets money and as it lowers from 100% more people come back to work. The important thing to understand is that at some point the government would lose revenue rather than make it with higher rates and that is why lower rates should be implented. When tax rates are high, rich people stop investing their money and find tax shelters for it, but when its lower they continue to invest and expand their businesses. [1,2]C2: HistoryI. Harding-Coolidge Tax CutsUnder Woodrow Wilson, the top tax rate rose to a high of 77% and the country went into recession in 1921. Warren G. Harding became the next president of the United States and lowered the rate to 50% followed by Calvin Coolidge after his death, who lowered the top rate to 25%. This was followed by huge economic growth and a massive budget surplus. During this same period, Real GDP growth expanded from 2.0% before the cut to 3.4% after. The unemployment rate fell from 6.5% to 3.1%. In 1920, the share of revenue for those with over an income of $100,000 was 29.9%, but it was 62.2% by 1929. This actually got the rich to pay more in taxes than they did with a higher rate. Production increased dramatically. [1]Even more specifically with the Coolidge cuts: "Nor is it surprising that, with increased economic activity following the shift of vast sums of unemployment rate from 1925 through 1928 ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent. " [4]II. Kennedy Tax CutThe tax rates did rise to a high of 90%, but more to that in my refutations later. JFK wanted to pass his own tax cut and bring the top rate down from 90% to 70%. He was killed (interesting notice: both Harding and JFK were supply-side guys and died), but LBJ passed the tax cuts anyway. The results showed modest improvements. Real GDP grew from 4.6% to 5.1% and unemployment went from 5.6% to 3.9%. The Congressional Budget Office looked into federal budget receipts and found huge increases in billions of dollars that exceeded expectations. [1,3]III. Reagan Tax CutsWe all know that Reagan passed major tax cuts during his presidency that expanded the economy dramatically. The top tax rate went from JFK's 70% in 1981 to several lower rates before finally finishing at 28% in 1988. Once again, looking at the some economic figures. Real GDP growth was at 0.9% before the tax cuts to 4.8% after and unemployment decline from 10.8% at its height down to 5.4%. As with the two previous examples, the economy grew rapidly. C3: Income MobilityWhen the tax rates have been lowered we have seen huge income mobility among people. In a sense, it spreads wealth around and increase income mobility better than any social program could. This means that lower taxes is better in helping the poor because businesses are able to provide more jobs and increase wages. Income mobility is in the best interest of the people. During the Harding-Coolidge years: "The facts are plain: There were 206 people who reported annual taxable that number fell drastically, to just 21 people by 1921. Then, after a series of tax rate cuts during the 1920s, the number of individuals reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more rose again to 207 by 1925. Under these conditions, it should not be surprising that the government collected more tax revenue after tax rates were cut. " [4]During the Reagan years:"The percentage of families earning more than $50,000 in 1990 dollars rose by 5 points from 30.9 percent to nearly 35.9 percent. During the 1980s, millions of middle-class Americans disappeared into the ranks of the affluent. " [5]During the Reagan years, there were fewer than 5,000 people who had an income of $1 million or above. When he left 35,000 people did. This shows that there was huge income mobility at the time. [5]My CaseR1: Higher Taxes do not BenefitMy opponent and his report claim that when taxes were higher, economic growth was greated. This is simply not true. The rate was 90% under Eisenhower and the economy grew at 2.3%. During the Kennedy/Johnson presidencies when the tax rate was 70% the economy grew at 4.9%. This is far greater than under Eisenhower. Under Reagan, the economy grew at 3.2% with his low tax rates. In fact, every president beat Eisenhower with his 90% rate in economic growth except George H. W. Bush. [6]It is clear that the economy grew strongly when the top tax rate was cut. R2: Capital GainsAccording to Shlaes:"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year. " [7]The capital gains tax hinders the expansion of business and entrepreneurship which is necessary for every free market capitalist economy to expand, but taxes has hindered them. George Gilder writes about the history of the tax that:"Government tax policies have done their best to deter innovation and promote mergers, creating a capital blight in which smaller companies that were attempting to expand suffered most throughout the 1970s. " [8]R3: HistoryI have proven through the Laffer curve that tax revenue increased dramatically from when it was under higher rates and the economy expanded much faster. Why? Because people took their money out of tax shelters and invested or saved it allowing for economic growth and more revenue. The stock market grew stronger under Coolidge and Reagan than it did under Ike. Coolidge saw over 260% of Dow Jones growth and Reagan saw over 130%. Ike saw 120% growth, but remember that no one was paying their true income in the 1950s as they tried to hide their money. [9]FDR saw larger growth than Reagan's, but this was mostly because of World War 2 growth. Unemployment fell and real GDP increased, but only because of the war. Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.2. . http://www.debate.org...3. United States. Congressional Budget Office. U. S. Congress. A Review of the Accuracy of the Treasury Revenue Forecasts, 1963-1978. Washington D. C. : 1981. Print.4. Sowell, Thomas. ""Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich". " Hoover Institution, 2012. Web.5. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.6. Niskanen, William A. , and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record. " Cato. org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.7. Shlaes, Amity. "Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes. " Bloomberg. com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.8. Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century. Washington D. C. : Regnery, 2012. Print.9. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term. " MSN. com. MSN Money, 5 Nov. 2012. Web.

40

c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00005-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

The death penalty should be allowed The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.

23

cf402307-2019-04-18T14:13:52Z-00002-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

euthanasia I wish him good luck in this debate. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. [1] Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. [2] A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. Contention 2: The Slippery Slope ArgumentKeown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, "If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia. " However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. [3] . ) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. [4]The euthanasia's in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia's have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing? "From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain. "From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases. "From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" [5]You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. [6] We can also see that doctors themselves oppose euthanasia. Physician-Assisted Suicide [euthanasia]:42% Had both a "religious and nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide31% Had "no objection" to physician-assisted suicide21% Had a "nonreligious objection" to physician-assisted suicide5% Had a "religious objection" to physician-assisted suicidePhysician Characteristics:79% of Asian doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide71% of Hispanic doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide67% of White doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide65% of Black doctors in the US object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Catholic doctors object to physician-assisted suicide79% of Muslim doctors object to physician-assisted suicide75% of Protestant doctors object to physician-assisted suicide74% of Hindu doctors object to physician-assisted suicide54% of Jewish doctors object to physician-assisted suicide39% of doctors with no religious affiliation object to physician-assisted suicidePhysicians from the US Midwest are more likely to object to physician-assisted suicide than those from the US South[7] and [8]Contention 3: Self Ownership and SicknessConsent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia's have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round)Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. [9]For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. [10]Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, ""it is thegreatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right andwrong. " [11]This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society. Due to me running out of characters my sources will be presented in the comments section.

36

414e4d8a-2019-04-18T11:42:39Z-00001-000

Is golf a sport?

Marching Band is a sport!! Marching Band is a sport. The definition of a sport according to dictionary.com is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." In marching band participants (usually) march around a football field for approximately 8-10 minutes to perform a halftime show. They also have the option to dance and maybe even groove. Members are also carrying instruments that they are playing and memorizing the music, aka severely multi-tasking. So therefore, Marching band DOES require athletic activity and skill, that would consider it a sport.

28

b72509d-2019-04-18T11:31:54Z-00001-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Prostitution should be legalised, change my mind. First of all, I never stated that I did not want any regulations on prostitution. I'm arguing for the legalisation of prostitution only. The definition of legal is "of or relating to law" (https://www.merriam-webster.com...). Just because something is legal, does not mean that it cant be regulated. There are plenty of things that are legal but regulated. The definition of prostitution is "The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...) and I want to legalise that. I don't want to legalise beating prostitutes for example, quite the opposite.Your study had a wider range worldwide yes, but your study only proved that 75% of all prostitutes have been physically assaulted at some point in their lives. This is not really proving much of what the legalisation will do to rape overall. My opponent also stated that "even the researcher admits it may be limited to Rhode Island". This research only show the exact statistics of Rhode Island because it was made in Rhode Island. What they are really saying is that there is no "proof" of it being the same outside of Rhode Island. But if this were a real argument, then your Swedish argument is also invalid because it might only be limited to Sweden. But to prove that prostitution actually decrease rape worldwide I will give you some other studies that show the samehttps://www.aeaweb.org...http://www.nber.org...http://www.micaelasviatschi.com...I cant show any more studies showing the same result because I'm running out of characters. But do some research, all studies show the same. The decrease of rape when prostitution is legalised ranges from 30-50%. There is no doubt, there is a decrease in rape.I did not fail at all to cite sources for Germany having little human trafficking. The third link in my argument proves it. The site that my opponent gave me only states that " Exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems". The site does not tell us how big of a problem it is, and not compared to other countries. Even if it were a big problem the site stated: remain as a problem. This means that the legalisation did not affect human trafficking. It stayed the same. Again my site shows how Germany is doing on a worldwide scale, and its better than most countries (https://www.theatlantic.com...).(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com...) This study shows that when prostitution was legalised in Germany 2002, sex trafficking started to decline. From 159 convictions a year, to 110 convictions a year."Sex work is work" This simple yet powerful statement frames sex workers not as criminals, victims, vectors of disease, or sinners but as workers.I suggest you vote Pro. Thank you.

16

965182fe-2019-04-18T12:07:01Z-00002-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

All drugs should be legalized. I want to start off by saying I DID explain why alcohol is a problem and why it supports my case. Alcohol is still a problem to this day which is why legalizing every drug ever would be a problem. You also said I didn't have a better solution. As being on the con side, I don't have to have a planned out solution. I just have to prove that yours won't work. But regardless, I can easily say I have a solution. Your side is just saying that all drugs should be legalized. Every single made. I don't have to say every drug should be banned, I just have to offer something different from that which is almost every drug should be legal. We both agreed that useless drugs like heroin have nothing to do. I can simply say every dangerous but also useless drug ever made could be banned and I'd be done. I have offered a better solution that useless drugs dont have to be allowed but others that do can. I mean, we have things like gun laws for a reason. We can do the same thing with things like heroin. Also really quick I mentioned Trump as an example of why we need to teach kids about freedom because Trump obviously doesn't care about that. Legalizing things like heroin even though they have no use would make no sense. Putting labels on things like heroin won't do anything because people can still accidentally overdose. If we strengthen the education on dangerous and pretty uselesss drugs, people will be more aware of how dangerous they are. I know your point was to educate people on this but I'm just saying talking about the useless drugs that wouldn't be legal.

38

e6cd693e-2019-04-18T19:16:47Z-00002-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively Pro once again starts off in saying that the public option would have to make a profit. But he gives no reason or proof of this. Why would they be forced to make a profit? As I already stated, and Pro did not respond to, our government is not concerned with debt because it grows by the day, so why would they have to make a profit. In addition to that, on average insurance companies only make a 6% profit margin. In a list of 53 industries, health insurers were at 35 as far as how much profit they make. So they are not even making an obscene amount of profit. If they are forced to cut down even more on profit they will be run out of business which means that the public option is not effective in anything other than handing the health care industry to the government. http://news.yahoo.com... Next Pro says that just because it is government run doesn't mean it will receive government funding. This is simply not true the idea of a public option is to be government funded. "Senate Democratic leaders are considering a government-funded public health insurance option..." "Another controversial but cost-saving provision that Democrats in the House were planning to employ was the government funded public insurance option." These are just a couple of quotes discussing the *government funded* public option. http://airamerica.com... http://tothecenter.com... However, while it being government may be relevant to the debate on the public option itself, it is irrelevant to the resolution. Pro also says that Medicare and Medicaid have not driven insurance companies out of business. Yes that is true that is because Medicare and Medicaid do not impact insurance companies in anyway. They are only for those with low incomes and these programs are entirely funded by the government. So they are not taking any business away from health insurance companies so naturally they do not run them out of business. This brings me to my next point, which is that a public option will take business away from health insurance companies. Former customers of insurance companies may switch to the public option. So these insurance companies would be losing business and at the same time be forced to cut back on their already small profit margin because of the public option. This would clearly run them out of business which means the public option would not be effective thus the resolution is negated.

38

82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00001-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Medical Marijuana should be a legal option "If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. " --- Yes, many drugs on t. v. list a long list of side effects, but one must take into account that those warnings are for legal purposes so that no one can sue the drug company for getting nauseous when taking the drug. Marijuana has a much greater statistic of harming a person taking it than if one was to take another legal drug. Also, morphine is an addictive drug, but we are not arguing the merits of morphine. I ask that my opponent drop this point, as there are many drugs that are perscribed that are not as addictive as marijuana or opiates. "There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6]" -In source 4, the author never lists the benefits, and in source 5 the person asking the question suggested the benefits of marijuana, marijuana was not suggested. In the same source, the person answering the question said that it was highly controversial. In source 6, it was a nice story, but what about lond term side effects? My second source says that there are long term side effects to this addictive drug, and whos to say that the kid will not grow up an addict? There are many cases in which a child is given a drug that he or she quickly becomes addicted to. . http://www.break.com... "Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. " -Same thing with drinking alcoholand then driving. Thats illegal, but people do it none the less. Legalizing marijuana would allow people to do things while under the influence of THC, and that puts the rest of us at risk. "There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. " -Yes, I know. But that was listed as a method in my source, and I support it still. Any way one ingests marijuna is bad. "For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? " -Totally agree with you on this one, but this debate is about marijuna, not opiates.

14

59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00000-000

Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

There's no such thing as being born GAY! Thank you for your timely reply. "I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine." No comment. The voters can judge this statement. "...yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY." The word 'lots' is a generalized word to make an argument look stronger. However, with no statistics or sources, I can not prove this fact true. It is your job as a debater to cite and make claims backed up with sources. It is like saying "there are a lot of people in the world. Search it up on a search engine." It is your job as a debater to provide these details. I have to analyze and view this comment as unproven. " Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being." This is true. However, my study has proven this at birth, as these would not affect the outcome of the study I provided. "First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians." Men and women both have testosterone, so the levels of estrogen is unnecessary into determining the sexual orientation of a person. Many sexually differentiated characteristics are organized by sex steroids, which I agree with you, but it also affects sexual orientation. Multiple sexually differentiated behavioral, and physiological traits are significantly different in homosexual and heterosexual people. Some of these traits are known to be organized by prenatal steroids, including testosterone. These differences suggest that homosexual subjects were exposed to endocrine conditions during development.[1] Testosterone is a steroid hormone responsible for sexual orientation. In addition, my opponent misread my argument, as I said when the male fetus receives too little testosterone, it causes the sexual orientation. The study I provided was only studied over males. I did not imply females get to choose. It was a stretched assumption made by my opponent. "...why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!!" They have not displayed homosexual behaviors because it effects the early development of babies, and not adults. The study you did looked up was the one I did provide in my sources. It is important to remember that I provided over 5 studies, this being the most outdated one. All of them proved that sexual orientation was decided at birth. Being critical over one study, that is still reliable and even helps prove the more recent studies, is unnecessary. Providing one outdated study is better than displaying none, like my opponent. (Unless you count Wikipedia, none cited, so the information cannot be trusted nor verified.) "I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since!" Yes, as I stated before, people can change their viewpoints. As we argued earlier on, there is no test we can give a person after birth to determine if they are straight or homosexual. Just because of your personal experience, (needless to say only one experience), should not be the determining factor of the majority of studies. Sure, people can change their views. However, even by the confusion, (which could be from external factors), there is still the underlying factors that have been ingrained in the memory. "And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!" As you can tell by my opponents choice of language, like "lmao", my opponent does not take this as a serious debate. Saying it is a poor choice for a guy being gay is judging. "... yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not?" Another person could judge for a girl wanting to do that to a guy. There is no difference, as this does not even matter into the deciding factor of if someone is born gay. My opponent only supplied her personal opinion, displayed a multitude of times throughout this debate, with rude language, a closed mind, and no sources. The answer is clear, as I supplied multiple studies (that non my opponent actually refuted with sources), and thorough explanations. My opponent simply acted as if the assumptions made on my opponents part were correct, as with no sources or statistics, cannot be proven. My sources are credible and reliable. My opponent used one personal experience. Vote pro. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

1

4d8487a-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00001-000

Should teachers get tenure?

Teachers Evaluations in NYC What are you talking about obviously you are not aware of how these evaluations work they are graded according to their overall classroom successes. The children have a very small part in deciding which teacher gets a grade of achievement or under achievement. The Department of Education grades them on their own merit system and procedure that the department calls for. Why would nyc leave the grading system up to students who are in the learning process themselves that would be ridiculous. The teacher is the one who has to follow a curriculum and depending upon how well the information is portrayed and received by the students the teacher has the obligation to go forth and give the students an outlet to scoping the minds of tommorrow. The teachers will be graded based upon their attendance, their overall rates of the reading and math scores of the students, the parent teacher meetings about the student, the interaction between the students and the teacher. The teacher is no longer comfortable in having tenure they have to work hard in order to keep their position. This gives the teachers a heads up on how well or not well they are doing their job and also it gives those who want to have a career in teaching an incentive or how they can change or better the school system for the students learning and for the teachers who are constantly learning everyday. The Department of Education has the guidelines for these teachers conduct and achievements and the students can only be surveyed as to what the class has given them not much of a which teacher needs to go or stay but what each teacher can do to keep the students attentive and how they can make it more interesting and exciting to learn new material. The students are like the lab rats except there is no harm being done to them intentionally.

16

6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00005-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the "ill-informed" pubic.

35

7a99f4c0-2019-04-18T16:50:24Z-00000-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Video games cause violence I will extend all my arguments. (I'm kicking myself in the rear because of my awful 2nd round! XD)

12

3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00009-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Birth Control I believe that birth control should be allowed to be obtained without parental consent. When a girl is requesting to use birth control, she is being mature and responsible and it is her own right, not her parents, to make the decision to have sex or not. If someone is making the decision to have sex, they should be mature enough to make the decision to be safe about it. Further more, most teens would have sex if they want to regardless if they have protection or not, so it is better to be safe than sorry.

12

679b4310-2019-04-18T18:44:18Z-00004-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Welfare Recipients Should Be Subject to Mandatory Birth Control DefinitionsI am not looking to win on a cheap semantic point but I am confused on Pros definition here. Pro says "For the purpose of this debate, I'd like to clarify that the word "welfare" will mean benefits or resources typically provided to the average non-recipient through wages earned, or through an employer. These could include healthcare benefits, cash payments, food assistance, or housing. "Doesn't Pro mean resources or benefits provided to the recipient ? How can some one who is on welfare be a non recipient ? After reading Pros argument I think what they have in mind is government paid/tax payer funded benefits to people, also known as welfare. I think its also clear what Pro has in their sights is the social safety net/welfare system of which distributes government payments. I shall first present some objections to Pros argument, then move on to providing argument so to why we should NOT have mandatory birth control for welfare recipients. Objection 1: Birth control and abortionClearly the goal of Pros policy is to not have people on welfare produce more babies. Yet Pro takes away the option of abortion. I find this restriction dubious at best and possibly hypo critical. I think Pro is trying to have it both ways here, wants to have no children produced on welfare, but doesn't want to anger the pro life/evangelical community. Well I am not going to let that slide, if your willing to deny pro creation rights to welfare recipients then you don't get to take away their pro choice rights. You want no babies on welfare then you allow abortion as an option for people who have to fulfill the burden YOU put on them in the first place. It's the least you could do. Under Pros policy we can have a mantra for welfare recipients. .. .. .. abortion. .. .. .. .safe. .. .. .affordable. .. .. .. .. and regular ! !! Objection 2: Is mandatory birth control really the best option ? Take this example that Pro provides. .. "Hodges is a perfect example of why mandatory birth control is necessary. "[She] had been on birth control pills, she said, but quit taking them because her boyfriend was in jail. When he was released, she didn't have any contraceptives around the house. And that's when she became pregnant. ""But notice that Hodges had been taking birth control pills, but later on didn't take them cause she didn't have any around the house. There is an access issue here to birth control. Before we take away reproductive rights, maybe we should make sure that every effort has been made at education of birth control and access to birth control before taking away such rights ? Pro provides another example. .. ""Sylvia Missal, who runs a young parent program at Children's Hospital in Boston," says that welfare mothers say they do not want more children but "they're not able to organize themselves. ""Again the first issue here is one of organisation, if this was solved you wouldn't need to resort to mandatory birth control. I shall now provide argument that welfare recipients should NOT be subject to mandatory birth control. The Religious Procreation Argument"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth. " [1]This is on the first page of the bible. Pros restriction is in direct contradiction of Gods command and implied command for humanity to pro create. .. .. .. fruitfully. Does Pro really want to go put something in place that goes against the good book ? the holy word of God ? Well maybe Pro does, but I am sure all those evangelical Christians on which they profess there faith on the authority of the word of the Lord would be not so inclined. Evolution and Diversity Now maybe Pro doesn't adhere to the Christian God, or the Christian holy text. Maybe Pro doesn't even believe there is a designer, well I got you covered there too. Pros command for mandatory birth control is a big no no in the survival of a species. Under Pros proposition humans as a species will have less diversity, (read less genetically diverse). It won't just be less because a 2nd generation of welfare recipients won't exist, it has a knock on effect as those welfare recipients cause they don't exist won't have kids, and those kids who will now not exist won't exist and so on and so on. The lesser the genetic diversity the lesser the chances for a species to survive as wikipedia explains. .. "Genetic diversity plays a very important role in survival and adaptability of a species because when a species's environment changes, slight gene variations are necessary to produce changes in the organisms' anatomy that enables it to adapt and survive. A species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have more variations from which to choose the most fit alleles. Increase in genetic diversity is also essential for a species to evolve. Species that have very little genetic variation are at a great risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring often deal with similar problems to those of inbreeding. The vulnerability of a population to certain types of diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity. " [2]Military RecruitmentUnfortunately people are wising up that being sent to war by rich white men isn't all the glory and fun its made out to be. As such the military is having more and more problems getting recruits, sign up get shipped to Iraq and maybe get your legs blown off is hardly an appealing sell and people aren't just buying the whole your serving your country and freedom and democracy by going over sea's to dispose of a tyrant which was once supported by your own country. .. .. .. .. but I digress. Now I ask you, who is going to fight in the military , and by fight I don't mean enlist I mean actually going over to what ever hell hole and actually being in harms way. Who will do this ? the George W Bushes of the world ? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who look less like Dubbya and more like Freddy Krueger who has being dis figured in military combat and also is in a wheel chair cause they had their legs blown off ? yeah good luck with that. Clearly it is necessary for the elite not to be put in harms way which explains why it was necessary for George W Bush be kept safe during Vietnam conscription in the national guard. .. "During the 1968–1974 period, Presidents Johnson and Nixon decided against calling up National Guard units for service in Vietnam. As a result, National Guard service was widely portrayed as a way to avoid combat. The waiting list for the Guard at that time was extremely long, and there have been charges that young men from influential families were improperly moved to the top of the list. " [3]So who shall fight in wars ? easy, poor, desperate people that's who. But under Pros plan there will be less of these poor desperate people, and thus undermine the recruitment effort of the military. Pros plan weakens our resolves and emboldens the enemy. I look forward to Pros response. Sources[1] . http://www.biblegateway.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

45

bf8e76ff-2019-04-18T11:53:03Z-00001-000

Should the penny stay in circulation?

should death penitently stay yes i understand where you are coming from but before I start yes I did spell it wrong but I was tired when I started so now lets begin one I'm wondering where you are coming from on the whole race thing one, yes people still hate certain races and favor others but in the court of law it does not matter what race you are they hire judges that choose your punishment based on what you did and your record now I'm going into depth with this I belive it should still stay because one The Constitution Allows For The Application Of The Death Penalty. The Constitution of the United States, more specifically through the application of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit the use of the death penalty in appropriate cases. And another thing you are doing your research on things that are almost a decade old things like that change and you can be put on the death sentence for more than murder say a child rapist you think they should just stay in prison?but think of this also there are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer"s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on.here's another reason I think it should be allowed I THINK that if we get tough on crime to say like murder people will think twice like hey if I kill this innocent person I might get put on death so they think twice and don't do it but that's just me and it might not happen but okay here's something what if a criminal goes on a rampage and kills dozens of civilians and eight cops and gets arrested what do you think the punishment would be life? Possible but just cause he/she is a human does not save from death

28

29e66283-2019-04-18T19:27:24Z-00000-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere "Exactly, that is why we should make it legal in every state in this country or at least make it possible for whores to get licenses which they shouldn't have to have a license because it's their own body but I guess its better than nothing. " I myself am for prostitution to be legalized but just not "everywhere" because if such a thing does happen there will be no licensing and "anyone" can choose to sell their bodies, like little kids. I am for making prostitution legal "almost" everywhere by states being able to legalize brothels, which could control who is allowed to sell their body and who is NOT allowed to sell their body such as children. It is better to have a license so it would be easier to tell if a brothel is running illegal prostitution with abducted woman and perhaps children. And if the legal brothels are forced to have regular health checkups, unlike the Netherlands, AIDs will be maintain and controlled from prostitution. "Actually, if prostitution was legal without having to have a license for it then they would not have to have a pimp or manager. " I am guessing you did not comprehend what I wrote before, or I did not make it clearer. Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal "everywhere", but there still happens to be human trafficking going on and woman are still being abused and abducted to be forced in prostitution. It would be much better if they work in legal brothels that do not force them in prostitution and do not abuse them, because legal brothels are state owned. There can only be brothels in a county with a population of 400,000 or less. I would say they should increase this so it can apply to more areas and states should decide to allow brothels to be ran in their counties, as this will "generate revenue" for the state To make my view clear in where I stand in prostitution I will say this. .. . I do think prostitution should be made legal in more states other than Nevada. Prostitution should be made legal but only in specific areas such as legal brothels.

40

cbf9e451-2019-04-18T17:42:06Z-00000-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated Summary of the debate:I have presented my arguments and explained why we should keep the death penalty:- Death Penalty is Just: It's not revenge, but a fitting punishment for the ones who committed horrendous crimes.- Death Penalty deters crimes: I've shown several studies showing that the death penalty deters homicides.I have also refuted Pro's points:- We can't outlaw something just because we personally don't like it. Morality is subjective and can't be used as a basis to change the law.- The death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore it does not violate the constitution.- Innocent people on death row is a thing of the past. Current methods help us easily find out whether someone is the true culprit.In conclusion, the capital punishment should not be abolished, in order for justice to prevail and innocent lives to be saved.

41

ba472fa6-2019-04-18T13:02:25Z-00004-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

Student Separation Students should be separated by their grades. That way students can go at the same learning pace as other students without all being mashed together into one class. Round1- accept/ first point Round 2- debate " " "

43

824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00009-000

Should bottled water be banned?

Bottled water should be banned Bottled water should be banned!

21

9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00005-000

Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.

3

ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00004-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Death Penalty should be allowed I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.

33

2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00003-000

Should people become vegetarian?

Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan "First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat" - This point is irrelevant to the argument; I merely state that everyone SHOULD become lacto-vegetarians/vegans and that we would have a better world and a better society if this is to be achieved. At no point did I mention anything about forcing people. "second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals" - The first comment is not explained clearly; for what reason does someone need to be keeping animals in check? Also, without the murder of animals, what is preventing us from keeping these animals in check? I can't argue back until you make that clear. The second statement is a common assumption that is often mistaken by meat eaters. There would be no overpopulation of animals; with the number of farm animals currently living in the world I can understand why it may seem so but that is only due to the mass breeding of livestock animals that takes place in order to provide more animals to be killed for their meat or to be kept for their produce (dairy/eggs/wool). Without the excessive breeding managed by the farming industry, the overpopulation of animals will most certainly not be any more of a problem than it is today. Whilst on the subject of doing what is best for the environment; bringing a halt to meat eating would greatly reduce the impact of climate change. "There are three times as many domestic animals on this planet as there are human beings. The combined weight of the world's 1.28 billion cattle alone exceeds that of the human population. While we look darkly at the number of babies being born in poorer parts of the world, we ignore the over-population of farm animals, to which we ourselves contribute...[t]hat, however, is only part of the damage done by the animals we deliberately breed. The energy intensive factory farming methods of the industrialised nations are responsible for the consumption of huge amounts of fossil fuels. Chemical fertilizers, used to grow the feed crops for cattle in feedlots and pigs and chickens kept indoors in sheds, produce nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Then there is the loss of forests. Everywhere, forest-dwellers, both human and non-human, can be pushed out. Since 1960, 25 percent of the forests of Central America have been cleared for cattle. Once cleared, the poor soils will support grazing for a few years; then the graziers must move on. Shrub takes over the abandoned pasture, but the forest does not return. When the forests are cleared so the cattle can graze, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Finally, the world's cattle are thought to produce about 20 percent of the methane released into the atmosphere, and methane traps twenty-five times as much heat from the sun as carbon dioxide." Those are the words of Peter Singer and, with my knowledge from in depth research, I could not put it any better. In 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published their projections of the greenhouse gas consequences if humanity came to eat less meat, no meat, or no animal products at all. The researchers predicted that universal veganism would reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050. Universal vegetarianism would result in similarly impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These figures have not and cannot be proven for certain without being tested, but for those of you disagreeing that it should be tested - have a look at our world now; look at the increase of global warming that has taken place over the last few decades - we are risking the future of our planet for our own greed and desire for meat. On the subject of solving the issue of starvation: Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, and it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh; on average it takes 21 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. We get back less than 5 percent of what we put in. According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if soybeans were grown instead"". It should be no surprise, then, that food for a vegan can be produced on only 1/6 of an acre of land, while it takes 3 1/4 acres of land to produce food for a meat-eater. By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition. The meat industry is thus highly inefficient and, on top of the vast amount of land, resources, water and fossil fuels wasted, and the harmful gas emissions, farming (factory farming in particular) is also wasting extremely high amounts of energy that - if we transfer to vegetarian/veganism - could be stored and used to support more important causes. So, in conclusion - being a more efficient and environmentally friendly option - bringing a halt to eating meat would be the better option even if we discard the idea that we should not have the right to violate the animals. Yes, with such a large meat industry a forestalling of this could not happen over night but gradually as more people stop eating meat, the farms and factories will stop breeding so heavily and will require a lower energy consumption; this energy and space will then be transferred to produce more plants in order to meet the demands of the markets and, eventually, we could achieve it. Back to your arguments: "human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals" - Here you have provided a statement but have given no evidence to back it up. What makes humans the most important race? We have priority over all animals merely because we are far more intelligent and thus the more dominant of species, but by no means does this mean that we should kill them. Anyhow, all the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter the fact that: in suffering the animals are our equals. They feel pain and suffer just as we do and, therefore, it just as evil to inflict pain upon an animal as it is on a human. "many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons" - Again you have not explained your statement and in doing so you haven't given a proper argument that I can defend. Humans don't depend on meat products for their diet; they just see it as the easiest and most desirable option. I cannot name specific examples as you have not given me any examples to defend against but there are so many vegetarian/vegan alternative foods that offer the same nutritional values as meat. And hunting for financial reasons? That is no excuse to hunt animals, if anything that proves my argument further as those particular people are murdering animals as a means to one's end. It's absurd to think that people are acting immorally like that just for the money - and this can't be used as an excuse. That would be like justifying prostitution because people only do it for financial reasons, or contract-killing etc. Besides there are plenty of other jobs paying equal wages that do not require such unnecessary violence.

3

3b255dde-2019-04-19T12:44:21Z-00003-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

File-sharing Should Be Allowed The fact is that the only artists making money off record royalties (receiving money from every copy...

34

5d5ca6ac-2019-04-18T17:11:56Z-00002-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Why should students not be allowed to use social networking sites I thank the opposition for their polite answer. However, I have found some fallacious errors in the opposition's case. They stated that Dictionary.com defines a social networking site as a dedicated website or other application that enables users to communicate with each other by posting information, comments, messages, images, etc. However, this definition is false, as how can social networking sites be defined as a dedicated website website or application that enables users to communicate with each other by posting information, comments, messages, images? I disagree with this definition, and would like to provide my OWN definition. I define social networking sites as: an alleged "safe" place where it is known for its many cyber bullying issues that affect our community, our environment, and our surroundings. They also stated that in denying someone their ability to communicate with others, you are not only violating their constitutional rights, but also their human nature. But what would you prefer? A infringement of your rights to protect you, and those all around you, or your "constitutional rights" being active, and you, a student at risk? To begin with, social networking sites decreases a child's potential in school, thus possibly affecting their report. I have evidence to back me up. On this website, http://www.mirror.co.uk..., it stated that research done by YouGov showed a quarter of children aged six to 11 spend an hour a day on social networking such as Facebook and Twitter and only 1 out of 10 actually use the social networking site for homework or educational purposes. Let's say that there are 15 million students. If 9 out of 10 which is 90% of the students don't use social networking sites for educational purposes, then that is 13,500,000 students that don't use social networking sites for educational purposes. To the people who read this, then can you compare the number that do use social networking sites for educational purposes-1,500,000, and those that don't-13,500,000? That's 9 times the amount! Secondly, the unsuspecting student could be scammed, without him or her even knowing it. For example, in this government website, http://www.scamwatch.gov.au..., it stated that a scammer might request to be your friend so they can access your personal information. Scammers have also tricked users into handing over their social networking password and username. They do this by sending fake but genuine-looking emails or messages, supposedly from the social networking service, requesting "confirmation" of your username and password. This is called "phishing".Once a scammer has your password they can gain control of your account and pose as you. They may then use your account to send bogus distress messages to your friends and family claiming that you are in trouble and need money urgently. Scammers will often commit this scam whilst you are travelling if you have posted your holiday plans on your social networking profile. Scammers can also perpetrate this scam via email if they obtain access to your email account. My last argument is that,the student could be stalked or lured into meeting a stranger at a private place. Take this for an example and this a true story. According to this website, http://www.telegraph.co.uk..., Peter Chapman targeted thousands of impressionable young girls through the internet while posing as a teenage boy. Chapman used his correct day and month of birth but changed the year to make him appear half his age. He also used a picture of a bare-chested young man he claimed to be him with, giving his details as Peter Cartwright, or DJ Pete, a 17 year old labourer living in the Stockton on Tees area. It attracted interest from 14,600 visitors, almost 3,000 becoming online "friends" and all of whom were females ranging from the age of 13 to 31. But the most horrible information of all was that he befriended a girl named Ashleigh Hall, a shy 17-year-old who was desperate for a boyfriend.Then Ashleigh Hall clicked on to Peter Chapman's Facebook profile and saw a bare-chested teenager who was muscular, good looking and - crucially - interested in her. Then, Chapman told her to meet him, and when she was there, he raped and murdered her. And that was the tragic end of Ashleigh Hall. And that is why I believe, students should NOT be allowed to use social networking sites. We need to prevent this from happening any further. We need to protect the younger generations.

26

9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00001-000

Do standardized tests improve education?

State Standardized Tests Yes, your right, gravity is factual. It does exist. However, it may be true that triangles have three sides, but what is a four-sided triangle? I bet you can't answer that because you think it doesn't exist. In reality, a four-sided triangle is a quadrilateral. You just don't know it in that form. It's just like the other day when I was in school in math class. Someone said that a pentagon was a 5-agon and that undefined was actually spelled undefigned (un-de-fig-ned). Yes, your right, in reality these things don't exist because you don't know them in that way. But, what if they did? What I'm getting at is why did at some point in human history did we call an apple an apple and not a pear? I guess my initial question is "why did we give certain names to certain objects?" And FYI: You don't have to pull out the points and rename your points with rebuttals. That is just awkward and annoying. Again just my opinion.

28

181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00000-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Prostitution should be legal Thank you for the debate. As the rules say, I'll waive this round for the sake of being fair.

36

edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00003-000

Is golf a sport?

Golf is a sport Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a "game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. " [1]Sport, is a "physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). " [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word "sport. " Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal

11

e65906b2-2019-04-18T16:51:26Z-00003-000

Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Same sex marriage should be accepted As you can see, thesonofgod2013 has forfeited this round and I ask you to read my rounds and vote for me!

8

6702bd00-2019-04-18T17:57:26Z-00006-000

Should abortion be legal?

Abortion should be legal Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.Since my opppnent has made himself 'pro' in a debate where the resolution is "Abortion should be legal," I take it that he intends to carry the burden of proof. He did not stipulate that the burden of proof would be shared, so I will not be arguing that "Abortion should not be legal" (unless it becomes necessary in the course of the debate). I will simply offer rebuttals to Pro's arguments. If his case survives my critique, then he should win. If his case does not survive my critique, then he should lose.With those preliminaries out of the way, let's look at his arguments one at a time. From reading his post, I can discern three arguments: (1) the argument from the right of a pregnant woman to not have a child, and (2) the argument from the dangers of illegal abortions, and (3) the argument from bodily sovereignty.I. The right to not have a child.1. If abortion were not legal, then pregnant women would be forced to have children.2. A pregnant women should have the right to prevent herself from having a child.3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.The problem with this argument is that the first premise is just a tautology, and the second premise is a re-wording of the resolution, which means his argument begs the question. Essentialy, he's saying (1) If abortion were not legal, then it would be against the law to have an abortion; (2) it should not be against the law to have an abortion; (3) therefore, abortion should be legal. Pro has attempted to hide the circularity of his argument by the way he worded his premises.II. Illegal abortions are unsafe.1. If abortion is not legal, more women will have unsafe abortions.3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.Notice that what's missing from this argument is the second premise. Without a second premise, the conclusion doesn't follow, so this is an invalid argument. I could make guesses about what the second premise is, but then I might be accused of the strawman fallacy. In that case, I'll wait for Pro to supply the second premise.III. Bodily sovereignty1. The government should not control a woman's body.2. Making abortion illegal controls a woman's body.3. Therefore, the government should not make abortion illegal.This argument is problematic because there is a relevant exceptions to the first premise. If a woman had no other way to feed her child than to breast feed it, then the government would have the right to enforce a law that mothers breastfeed their own children. The alternative is that the government should allow mothers to neglect their own children, leaving them to starve to death. But having a law that expects women to breastfeed their own children means that there is a law that controls a woman's body. So although we might say that in most cases, the government should not control a woman's body, that is not without exception.ConclusionThe "right to not have a child" is just a rewording of "the right to have an abortion," so the first argument is circular. The second argument is invalid because there's a missing premise. The third argument is unsound because the first premise is false on the basis that there is an exception that is relevant to abortion. So all three arguments fail.

35

d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00043-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine. F.B.I. data shows that youth violence continues to decline. It is now at its lowest rate in years. Violent video games, therefore, can hardly be seen as a major problem since they´ve been around for years.[4]

47

4b0f28c0-2019-04-18T13:19:41Z-00002-000

Is homework beneficial?

Homework is Unnecessary. Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the round set aside for Arguments. He has asked that we scrap this debate and start an entirely new one. I have no problem with that, and will challenge him to a new discussion. If he doesn't accept, he is free to make his proactive case next round, and we can continue this debate outside the framework we have initially agreed upon. I look forward to a great debate either way. Thanks!

30

ea8c1293-2019-04-18T11:41:07Z-00000-000

Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Gun Control Okay, so this was a mistake clicking on because I didn't read it all the way through. So this is not my personal opinion, but I don't want to leave you hanging so I'll argue the other side.Gun control doesn't deter crime, gun ownership does.A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people." The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny." Alex Jones, radio host, in a Jan 7, 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"More gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns.According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether via accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths. Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicide is exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And people need more gun education and mental illness screening to prevent massacres. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." Heidi Cifelli, Former Program Manager of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program, stated, "Gun education is the best way to save young lives." The NRA states that the Eddie Eagle program is not meant to "teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children… Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks, and household poison, they're [guns] treated simply as a fact of everyday life." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence." Strict gun control laws do not work in Mexico, and will not work in the United States. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.https://gun-control.procon.org... is where all of these arguments are from. My own input will probably come in next round.

6

c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00003-000

Is a college education worth it?

College is a Necessity to be Successful I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning "half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. "According to Wall Street Journal,"Paying for college never is easy, but it"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can"t afford a college education. That"s wrong. Most of them can." Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.

26

b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00004-000

Do standardized tests improve education?

Standardized Tests Standardized tests should be used from Grades 1-12. Round 1- first point/accept Round 2- debate " " "

47

f80ac9f-2019-04-18T13:39:17Z-00004-000

Is homework beneficial?

Procrastination is not generally benefical When you hear the word procrastination, other words might come to mind as well, such as lazy, irresponsible, or reckless. But in truth those traits are misconceptions developed by our culture and have nothing to do with procrastination in its essence. That being said, I ask that you keep an open mind and look deeper than the stereotypes that may at first cloud your vision. Before I begin I want to remind the audience that the definition this debate is using to define procrastination is; "the avoidance of doing a task which needs to be accomplished. " I also want to clarify a little bit on what the burden of proof is. My opponent's job is to prove the resolution, "procrastination is not generally beneficial," to be true. My job is to prove that the resolution is false. In other words, I do not have to prove that procrastination is generally beneficial rather that it is generally not non-beneficial. A subtle difference, but a difference none the less and the importance of this will be shown in one of my rebuttles. I will now present my arguments, and then address my opponents arguments. Argument 1: Procrastination can benefit us in our everyday lives It gives us an energy boost. The most common tasks that people procastinate on are tasks that are intimidating or cause a kind of fear due to the size and weight of a project. "As a deadline approaches, we fear the consequences of not getting it done on time. That fear releases adrenaline, a natural pain killer, and feeling less pain makes doing difficult or less desirable tasks easier. Energy is the strongest benefit of procrastination. " -Steve Mcclatchy [1] Without procrastinating, completing the same task would be a lot more difficult. It helps us focus and save time. When one procrastinates and waits till the last possible moment to complete a task, their focus will be unwavering. Things that would have normally distracted them, emails, facebook, youtube videos, the possibility to go out for lunch with a friend, are no longer an option because they know it's either now or never. This also saves them the time that they would have spent doing all these things if the deadline had not motivated them to avoid distractions. They also save time because they finsihed the task quicker; They gave themselves a tight time frame that they had to complete the task resulting, finshing in record time. It allows fresh and creative thinking. Procrastination is the process of leaving a task till a time that would be more ideal to complete it. Many times someones mindset might not be right for a certain task at the moment and if they were to not procrastinate and try to complete that task right then and there, then they would most likely do a minimal and uncreative job. Procrastination allows one to clear their mind by doing other more simple tasks or by taking a nice long break. Although they may spend a lot of time do "nothing," when they do get around to completing the task they do it faster and with more creativity. [2] Recent studies reveal that the trick to creativity often lies in walking away from a problem, giving the mind the freedom to wander and the space to make new connections, an idea explored in a Wall Street Journal article. [4] It allows us to complete smaller tasks easily. When someone procrastinates on a large task, suddenly all the smaller tasks that need to get done as well seem easy and one will complete those smaller tasks while they procrastinate on the bigger task. [1] It motivates us to work with passion. "If you work on something you can finish in a day or two, you can expect to have a nice feeling of accomplishment fairly soon. If the reward is indefinitely far in the future, it seems less real. " [3] Argument 2: Procrastination is not only beneficial, lbut nescisary For every task, in order to do it well there must be some extent of procrastination before hand; you must avoid doing a task enough to prepare to do it. If you rush into trying to complete a task before you"ve even thought through how to do it, more often than not it won't end with good results. Argument 3: Procrastinating is like eating carrots There once was a young girl who lived in a village far away from civilization. Around this village in the open fields grew thousands of wild carrots. Sadly, when the villagers tried to consume these carrots they tried to swallow them whole and choked on them. From then on the people of the village thought that carrots were from the devil. All of them except the young girl; She gave the carrots another try and found that they go down a lot better when you chew them first. The moral of this tale is, there"s a right way to eat carrots and a wrong way just like there's a beneficial way to procrastinate and there's a non-beneficial way. But most people would agree that carrots aren't bad, in fact, most would say they are generally beneficial and it's about time that the misconceptions of procrastination be abolished as well. Carrots are not from the devil, neither is procrastination. Argument 4: Whether we like it or not, we all are constantly procrastinating. We all constantly have multiple tasks that need to get done but that we are avoiding in order to complete other necessary tasks. If you don't procrastinate at all that means you have no life; You have no schedule or agenda or responsibilities. Rebuttle 1: My opponent argues that I'd you prastinate breathing aka hold your breath long enough it would cause a negative result, maybe even death. My opponent then claims that because of this, procrastination is generally non-benificial. There is a breathing method called Pranayama Breathing that has many health benefits including relaxation and enhanced focus. And guess what, this breathing method requires procrastination while breathing; you have to hold your breathe as one of the steps. [5] Step 2 of my oponents argument claimed that avoiding the act of breathing is bad but i just proved that it can be beneficial. And remeber, just because carrots can cause choking doesnt mean that they are generally unhealthy. Therefore I say, procrastination is not generally non-benificial. Rebuttle 2: My opponent claims that procrastination that isn't productive and is a mindless escape is a problem, yet there are scientific studies showing we need both those things. Our bodies need rest and although rest is not itself productive, it results in productivity later on. Our brains also need an escape so that they can clear. [6] Rebuttle 3: I agree with Shia; Just Do It! But before you just do it, make sure you procrastinate enough; avoid doing it enough to know what it is you want to do and the best way to do it. Again I say, chase your dreams! But before you do, wait long enough to find out if it's a dream worth chasing. Once you find that out, then just do it! Rebuttle 4: My openent claims that time does not exist and just to make things interesting, I'll go along with it. But if time doesn't exist and if procrastination doesn't exist, then procrastination can neither be beneficial nor non-beneficial. It's simply impossible. Therefore the resolution, in this case that time doesn't exist, could not be possible. And let me remind you that my job is to prove that the resolution is false. The resolution is false. Please vote con. Sources: [1] . http://www.fastcompany.com... [2] . https://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] . http://www.paulgraham.com... [4] . http://qz.com... [5]. https://www.unm.edu... [6] . http://www.scientificamerican.com... Disclaimer: I wrote this debate on a mobile device while traveling so I wasn't able to bold any text. My apologies.

38

e6cd693e-2019-04-18T19:16:47Z-00005-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively During This debate, I will be arguing that the public insurance option would control the cost of health insurance effectively. My argument is that the public option would control costs because the insurance companies would have to match the prices offered by the government. The insurance companies would not be run out of business because the public option would have to be spontaneous. No funding would be received from the government, and the organization would have to make a profit to stay in business. Thus, all actions made by the public option could be duplicated by any for-profit organization.

26

70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00003-000

Do standardized tests improve education?

Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. "In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [8]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. Humans' Emission of CO2It would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[12][13][14]Another piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments.

12

739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00002-000

Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Birth control given out in schools I am not debateing teaching absitence or birthcontrol in schools...i am debateing why it shouldnt be GIVEN OUT in schools.

47

68a4d00a-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00000-000

Is homework beneficial?

Homework should be banned If you truly feel that the homework you are being given is not beneficial to your education, then you should try to do something about it. Bring it up to your parents first, get their opinion. You will have to have some valid points as to why it isn't beneficial. Also, try to come up with something that would be more beneficial, because homework isn't going anywhere buddy, not for any of us.

29

419baef6-2019-04-18T20:03:47Z-00000-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

Illegal Immigration: Should we deport all illegal immigrants we find in the U.S. Hello Harlan, You state that the illegal immigrants do more help than harm. You call my statements illogical but really that statement by itself is more illogical than anything I said. Remember last round I promised to bring you the amount illegals cost us in a whole. Well i kept to my word because here it is: Here's the break down: Illegal immigrants pay approximately 16 Billion dollars per year in taxes. Sounds pretty good right? This is how much they cost us: They cost Arizona taxpayers alone over $1 billion annually in services for schools, medical care, welfare anchor babies, loss of tax base and prisons. Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. 75 percent of drugs arrive from Mexico at a net cost of $120 billion hard currency that leaves our country for good. In addition, our tax dollars pay $80 billion for the War on Drugs each year. $1.6 billion annually in prison costs to house, feed and clothe those filling 30 percent of our federal and state prisons "not to mention TV, movies, weight rooms and other entertainment" they enjoy while being incarcerated. The average annual cost per child K-12 is $7,161.00 and exceeds $109 billion annually per cycle of anchor babies. That is your money given out to 300,000 moms and their kids annually and all they did was get pregnant and birth that child on U.S. soil. Average bilingual education is $1,200.00 per illegal alien student. We educate 1.1 million illegal alien children each year. Georgia taxpayers paid a whopping $242 million for educating illegal alien kids in 2003. The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. $56 billion in pure cash illegal migrants sent to their home countries last year and every year? That's after their kids enjoyed free education, free lunches and free medical care paid for by you. Mexico receives $15 billion annually from its worker drones. No wonder Vicente Fox sent us 9.2 million illegal alien Mexicans so far. The lifetime net fiscal drain "taxes paid minus services used" for an adult immigrant is $55,200.00. $27 billion to provide forms, ballots, interpreters and brochures for languages other than English It costs $200 million to provide for emergency health care for illegal aliens in the Border States annually. California with over three million illegals paid $79 million, BUT four of their major LA hospitals bankrupted and shut their doors in 2004. Texas with 1.5 million illegal aliens paid $74 million in hospital care. Georgia ran a $63 million deficit for 64,000 unpaid doctor visits. The total of illegal aliens flooding into the United States this year will total three million "enough to fill 22,000 737 Boeing airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year". Harlan you do the math Lucky i did the math for you. and if you doubt my mathematical abilities you can check me In all that's $789,263,000,000. Lots of money isn't it. If you divide it by 50 that's 1,578,526,000 dollars per state. Over one billion dollars per state. I know that some states, particularly the border states pay more in the cases of Texas and California lots more but in all even you can't say that's not a lot of money. So, what could we use that money for? We could spend it on the War in Iraq with the money that the illegals cost us we could stay in Iraq for another 394,631,500,000 weeks if your statistic of us paying 2 billion a week on Iraq is true. we could get out of there and have money to spare. Oh and i almost forgot if illegals pay about 16 billion a year in taxes. then to pay us off they have about another...$773,263,000,000 togo before we are even. Harlan I'm sure if i don't address this you will harp all over me in your next submission so here i go. You say that illegals make up a huge part of our society. Well in reality they make up a huge part of the pain in the arse in our society. True they take jobs for lower wages but how many people do they take jobs from. They poverty rate of the U.S. of last year is 12.9%. That's 13 in one hundred people that" don't have the essentials for a minimal standard of well being and life. And the illegal immigrants our taking jobs from our impoverished that would love the job. May i repeat: Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. To your solution. I is reasonable but i would like details how would we make it easier? What would we do. It could be a reason able solution depending on the details. But if you say what i think you might say to "make it easier' then it would be a...problem.

28

ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00004-000

Should prostitution be legal?

Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. In this debate I intend to show that prostitution, when properly regulated, can be a victim less crime. One of the major reasons for prostitution's negative status is the world of crime that surrounds the business. This negative side of prostitution could be easily removed through government regulation. I intend to prove this in the course of this debate.

17

5992fb47-2019-04-18T13:36:34Z-00003-000

Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.

33

d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00005-000

Should people become vegetarian?

THW become Vegetarians Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more "styles" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as "food". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

3

70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00003-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming CO2's Effect on TemperatureFirst, correlation. The climate data over the last 700,000 years or so show that temperature and CO2 track very close to each other. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv. The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[1]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 650,000 years[2]: CO2 can be the dominant forcing for the climate. Consider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. "In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range. .. exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[3]But then, there's also the matter of causation. CO2's effect on temperature can be explained by appealing to the carbon cycle. The Earth receives all of its energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected by the Earth's surface and by clouds and other particles present in the atmosphere. In addition, some of the built up energy in the Earth's surface can be emitted back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide trap some of this emitted heat by reflecting the radiation back to the surface. However, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases cause more of the energy that is being emitted from the surface to be reflected back to the surface. This causes more heat to build up, warming the planet. [4]Now consider climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[5]This can be shown in the below graph[5]: Now back to the carbon cycle. Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "the dominant [method] in the literature", these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [6]The graph below gives a statistical analysis[7]: The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [8]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. Humans' Emission of CO2It would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [9]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years[10][11]: The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One of the biggest indicators is the fact that less heat is escaping into space. Satellites measure less heat escaping out into space, particularly at the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. In other words, the Earth is retaining a greater percentage of the heat that it receives from the sun than it did before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[12][13][14]Another piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the 'human influence' fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[12][15][16]This graph shows this[15]: Related to this is the fact that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, is rising. This is because the temperature gradient between the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere is greater, as just described above. This causes the warmer air from the troposphere to rise, pushing the troposphere up. "Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause - the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere - has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. "[12][17]Another related piece of evidence to this is the cooling of the ionosphere. The ionosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where ionization takes place. It comprises the upper mesosphere, thermosphere, and lower exosphere. More precisely, it extends from 60 km to 1000 km above the surface. Studies indicate, ". .. moderate negative trends of about 2 to 3 K per decade at heights of 50 to 70 km. .. slightly larger cooling trends at heights of 70 to 80 km in the low and middle latitudes. .. essentially zero temperature trends between 80 and 100 km. .. at heights near 350 km, a negative trend of about –17 K per decade. "[12][18]Yet another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, if the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[12][15][19]This can be shown in the below graph[15]: Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments.

41

5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00001-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

Student Loan Debt I thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's "contention"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's "arguments"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave "Jimmy" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying "cool knick knacks." Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan – they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, "the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession." [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [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... [13] http://tinyurl.com...

28

286347c6-2019-04-18T12:24:41Z-00003-000

Should prostitution be legal?

legalized prostitution Diseases like HIV aids are actually some of the biggest reasons for prostitution to be legalized. Of course, this at first seems like an oxy moronic statement, but with the legalization of prostitution, sanctions could be placed in order to regulate the ways in which prostitution takes place. For example, if a woman has an STD than she will be restricted from turning to prostitution due to the limits that could be put down through the legalization of prostitution. The ability to say that "prostitution is legal BUT..." Is much more empowering to the justice system than to target all prostitution ever. Legalizing prostitution would not only require police officers to target more specific violations of the law but also require them to target things that are weighing on the minds of many individuals today such as human trafficking and other things that are taking place.

35

b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00002-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. There is possibly some things I didn't bother to clarify enough in my arguments. Particularly how desensitization caused by violent video games leads to an increase in violence outside of a military setting. I'll get to that and we should be crystal clear after that. Another thing I'll be hitting on is a logical fallacy my opponent has been using, which is basically her entire argument. AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT My opponents logical fallacy is called affirming a disjunct. Affirming a disjunct would look like this: Either A or B since A it's not B. Or if I wanted to write a more easy to understand example, here it is: Me or Debatability are debating. Since Debatability is debating it must mean I'm not. Anyway I'm not the best at writing examples, so if you're confused read the link that I'm using as a citation to prove my opponent's logical fallacy. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Here is how my opponent has used this logical fallacy. "A 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 " This doesn't prove that violent video games don't significantly contribute to real world violence. It merely shows that competition contributes significantly to real world violence. Both desensitization and competition can contribute significantly to real world violence. This isn't one of those either or situations. Competition is a huge reason for violence. If this weren't the case than evolution would have never occurred. VIOLENCE RATES The chart my opponent provided isn't really well cited. I can't pull up what those numbers even mean is it a chart showing international or national video games sales and crime? It doesn't even matter. Violent video games can contribute significantly to real world violence, while the crime rate decreases. The chart really just boils down to correlation stats as opposed to causation stats. VIDEO GAME'S EFFECTS "Studies 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"" The article referenced no such studies of inmates. The quote my opponent grabbed was on cited from an author of a cracked. com article. It's just a funny story a former prison guard was recounting. The article did cite a few articles that showed some positive effects of violent video games, but none showed a decrease in aggression or violence as a result of playing them. NOT BORN TO KILL "Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor. " You miss the point these are training exercises and according to the research you've provided aggression is only increased for a short period after the competitive endeavor. The competition on the shooting range is always going to be there regardless of whether the target is shaped like a human or like a dart board with the red circle in the middle. According to my opponents own research showing that aggression only increases for a short period of time after competition, we must assume something else is going on there. I say and the research suggests it's desensitization. It's easier to shoot a real person when you've simulated the event 100s of times and have gotten rid of that natural repulsion of doing so. DESENSITIZE ME My opponent brings up a study that. Contradicts mine and suggests that very little if any desensitization occurs. Let's examine this study closer. "The study involved 122 male and female undergraduate students who fell into two categories: 45 participants who had some video game experience within the last six months and 77 students who reported no video game exposure. " . http://www.newswise.com... The students were asked this question on a survey. (Probably more, but relevant to this debate) 1. Have you played a video game within the last 6 months? So how many of these students only played 1 game the previous 6 months? How many had had less than 3 total hours of videogaming those 6 months? How many of the non videogames players were exposed to a ton of other forms of violent media, such as slasher flicks? These types of studies need to have participants chosen more carefully. The study I showed uses people that play videogames a lot vs people that play rarely or if at all. It's a far better indicator of the effects of violent videogames. The study I've shown indicates that a lot of exposure to violent videogames makes it more likely that somebody will pull the trigger. "2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games. " The study I've shown though small indicates that exposure to a lot of videogames caused participants to be less concerned about the well being of their opponents. My opponents studies have shown that aggression is only temporarily increased due to exposure of competitive videogames. The study I linked to shows an increased willingness to pull the trigger. So something other than the temporary increase of aggression must be considered. That something is desensitization, as indicated by the decreased response to violent imagery. DR. BRUCE " So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence. " What desensitization does isn't necessarily cause people who aren't predisposed to violence to become violent. It actually contributes significantly to a culture of violence. Psychopaths are about 1% of the population and have a lack of concern for other individuals. They also make up over 30% of the prison population. . http://news.uchicago.edu... The 1% number is on the conservative end as well. Some psychologists have them at 4% of the population. These people will slice your throat and not feel an ounce of guilt about it the next day. Most of them probably won't do that, but they still account for a disproportionate amount if the violent crime taking place in the United States. Common sense tells you that with an increase in apathy about violence going on right in front of your face that more people inclined to commit violent acts will feel free to do so. We have what's called the bystander effect that occurs all the time and we keep seeing. New cases of it on television all the time. . http://m.psychologytoday.com... Bystander effect is actually where witnesses to a violent crime, do nothing to stop it or alert authorities to the situation. Sure some of this is caused by fear, but a large amount is caused by apathy. People just aren't bothered watching a man knock a woman's teeth out and take her purse. Psychopaths now feel safe committing violent acts in front of others due to the bystander effect. Another violent trend taking place across the United States is called "The Knockout Game". This is where a group of kids go around punching people as hard as they can in hopes of knocking them out. The targets are usually little old ladies or other defenseless people. . http://newyork.cbslocal.com... All it takes is one psychopath leading a bunch of desensitized teens just wanting to fit in, and committing the act of violence in front of a mixed crowd of desensitized and scared people. Half scared to step in the other half just isn't bothered by it. Desensitization creates a culture of violence. It makes people inclined to violence more likely to be violent and contributes by making violence less repulsive and by extension more acceptable. "The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence. " Those things mentioned are certainly factors, but just as important a those things is the culture of violence caused by desensitization. I've already proven that violent simulations (aka videogames) contribute to more violence on the part of the government and. If we look at the numbers to see how many deaths the government participates in, we can see that is a huge number. I've also shown that the desensitization caused by violent video games contributes significantly in direct and indirect ways.

35

46642c87-2019-04-18T19:37:10Z-00004-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence Violent video games do not cause individuals to take real violence lightly. Habitual video game players are not physiologically numb to real violence. You cited a paper arguing for this conclusion with serious methodological flaws and are attempting to use it to draw a conclusion it does not actually permit. Ones physiological responses to any stimuli diminish after prolonged exposure to a stimuli. If you play violent video games or watch snuff you will have a reduced response to it. The study in question establishes quite well that video games and videos of violence are processed in the same way. I'm sure you could use violent movies to find the same triggers. The huge flaw here is that such studies assumes humans cannot contextualize stimuli. Watching hardcore porn is a different experience than having sex. Similarly, watching violence, either computer graphics, movies, or snuff is completely different than "real violence". The study in question is finding that videos of violence and video games of violence are processed as similar ways. Duh. If one wishes to properly find a connection to show such stimuli it shouldn't be done purely in a cushy lab. Have one set of people play violent video games for an hour and then rush in, point a gun to their head, proceed to beat them with baseball bats, and rape them. Do the same to the control group without the violent video game and see if there is a difference. -- Implicitly even reading this you should be horrified in exactly the same way and realize that the video game is a moot point. Humans aren't stupid. We understand that it's a video game, that movie monsters can't hurt us, and that videos are images of things not happening now and not threatening us. This line of psychological work is seriously flawed. The video game industry is massive in Japan. Seriously, that's where we get our video games. They have an astoundingly minute amount of violence. Many soldiers in Iraq and other places have grown up playing violent video games. Seeing real violence first hand they are returning with post traumatic stress disorder in droves. Nobody ever gets post traumatic stress disorder from a video game or videos of violence. Video violence, violent movies, and video games are terrible analogs for the real violence.

41

574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00003-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Well then, I accept. I only ask that there is no disrespect, trolling, or semantics in this debate. Good luck!

19

d90ecf0b-2019-04-18T17:50:52Z-00004-000

Should gay marriage be legal?

Rather Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Gay Marriage SHOULD be Legal, gays are just like us.

21

5d920354-2019-04-18T16:11:42Z-00001-000

Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

Global Warming is Real and is Manmade! In ROUND 3 I will continue my ROUND 2 response, where I will show the link between carbon dioxide emitted by human activity and the increase in global surface temperatures. In the final ROUND I will go over the effects of climate change caused by global warming.Carbon Dioxide (and Other Green House Gases) are Causing Global Warming and Climate ChangeWith the advent of the industrial revolution, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations and other green house gases [1][2]. However, climate scientists overwhelmingly pin the blame of global warming on carbon dioxide because it is the most widely and most abundantly emitted green house gas of human activity [3]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for more than 84% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of green house gases [3]. The remaining percent of warming can be attributed to green house gases like nitrous oxide and flourinated gases [3]. By itself, the IPCC has affirmed that carbon dioxide is reponsible for 54.7% of the global warming caused by green house gases; that's because it is the most abundantly produced green house gas of human activity and because it has an enormous radiative impact compared to other green house gases when accounting for its abundance in the atmosphere, its indirect heating effects, and because of the CO2 molecule's long lifetime in the atmosphere [3][4]. In fact, only water vapor has a stronger green house gas effect than carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but unlike CO2 water vapor isn't being emitted naturally by any known source at a large enough scale to be blamed for global warming [4]; water vapor does contribute to global warming, but this is because of a feedback loop caused as other green house gasses in our atmosphere increase in concentration and heat up the Earth's lower atmosphere [5].As the Earth's atmosphere and surface become warmer because of green house gas emissions, this drive's more water vapor to be absorbed into the air, further heating our planet; this water vapor loop is well-understood and contributes to anthropogenic (human induced) global warming [5].However, other green house gases emitted by human activity drive this loop and are primarily responsible for global warming. As the statistic above shows, carbon dioxide is responsible for 54.7% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of human activity. As I demonstrated with the graph on carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere in ROUND 2 (and as I reported in ROUND 1), never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high as it is today! Ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration (the highest concentration) of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million--and that was 300,000 years ago [1]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 398 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [1]!This unprecedented increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to human activity, such as through large-scale deforestation, land use changes (such as methane emission from ammonia-based fertilizers), and the burning fossil fuels (which include coal and gasoline) [2]. The IPCC reports that in the last 150 years, human activity has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 398 parts per million today [2]! According to the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), humans largely emit carbon dioxide and other green house gases from the production of electricity and from transportation; in the U.S. these two behaviors contribute to 60.8% of all the nation's emitted green house gases in a single year [3]. Other behaviors, such as those of industry, businesses, of agricultural, and of energy use in homes, contribute to the remaining 39% of the nation's green house gas emissions [3].Global warming is produced when green house gases in the atmosphere--water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide--accumulate in the atmosphere and act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing the sun's radiative heat and warming the Earth's surface [2]. Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. This is exactly what's happening now and generating planet-altering climate change (these effects will be explicated in the final ROUND).Volcanes and Changes in the Sun's Solar Output are Not Contributing to Global WarmingSome skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [6]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[6]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [6].Some opponents of manmade global warming claim that the Sun's solar output is responsible for the current rise in atmospheric temperatures--that humans are not responsible for the modern warming trend. But this is a view that the scientists firmly dispute, based on a variety of evidence (2):--Scientists point out that, since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased only slightly.--If the warming were caused by increased radiation coming from the sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead what they observe is a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Scientists say that this is a strong indication that green house gases are responsible for global warming, because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere.--Computer climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in green house gases.All of these bits evidence demonstrate that solar irradiance is not responsible for the rise in Earth's surface temperatures over the last century or more.Elevations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations have been responsible for Prehistoric Rises in Global Surface TemperaturesScientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [7]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [7]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [8] [9]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [8] [9]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[10].That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [11]. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[2] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[3] (http://www.epa.gov...)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[5] (http://www.nasa.gov...)[6] (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)[7] (http://news.softpedia.com...)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://smithsonianscience.org...)[10] (http://www.livescience.com...)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

13

8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00002-000

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I will adopt my opponents format and address his points with the appropriate numerals: 1) "As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057." I agree with my opponents assertion that fossil fuels are indeed finite in supply. Where I disagree with him however is in the amount he estimates the world to currently hold within its depths. Take for instance the recent discovery of the largest ever oil field found in the Gulf of Mexico by BP - a well containing 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil and natural gas (1). Indeed not only have huge oil deposits recently been discovered, there have also been vast numbers uncovered - 200 fields this year alone (1). With these recent discoveries, it would now appear that our estimations of world oil supplies are in need of serious revisions. For truly it seems scientifically dishonest to state that the world will run out of oil in 2057 when we have no idea how much oil the world actually holds. Therefore this point of contention you hold - that the supply of oil will run out sometime in the near future - is misleading in its assertions and rather invalid for the purposes of this debate. 2) "We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future." As noted earlier, the oil reserves in the United States more than adequately meet our own consumption requirements - roughly 21 billion barrels (2). We also must keep in mind that this figure is from 2007 - discounting the monumental recent findings addressed in 1 - and that it also discounts "unproven" oil reserves such as shale deposits and deep ocean wells. Therefore, your point that the U.S. doesn't have enough oil and has to import it is rather a moot point - we have the oil necessary to meet our own demand, we have simply chosen not to use it. 3) "From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment." I find it curious that some environmentalists - for I consider myself an "environmentalist" too - always point to the "unhealthy" nature of drilling for oil, when in reality the damage it does pales in comparison to the damage done by "alternative" methods of energy production. Take for instance solar panels. If we were to produce these on a commercial scale we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus. One could easily argue that the environmental damage done by mining for these minerals greatly outweighs both the damage done by gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and the established mining for ores necessary for coal production. Another common alternative energy source offered is hydrothermal dams. However the environmental impact of building a dam is inarguably worse than burning fossil fuels (3). Indeed the building of dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2 - making dams less environmentally efficient than the burning of fossil fuels (3). Furthermore recent advances in fossil fuel technology have reduced that amount of C02 produced by modern coal plants by 40% (4). Therefore coal - despite all the connotations and taboos associated with it - is actually not a very "dirty" energy production method, negating your point. "Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats." This is problem with the shipping of oil, not its production. The problems of transporting oil have little to do with whether or not the United States should continue to use. Indeed, the prospects of transporting alternative energy sources - say nuclear waste - are much more environmentally dangerous than shipping oil. "Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident." This is the full quote from your source, since you decided not to show it: "Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. However, this radioactivity from coal burning is minuscule at each source and has not shown to have any adverse effect on human physiology." Plagiarizing Wikipedia and deliberately editing quotes is not acceptable in a debate. Furthermore, your own sources are contradicting your arguments which is usually not a strategy employed by people interested in being taken seriously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to take some space to offer forth a point my opponent neglected to address: cost. The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels - in the case of wind its close to a 50% increase in cost per kilowatt per hour (5). This is due mainly to the fact that alternative energies are as of now unproven, contain inefficiencies of design, and have no infrastructure which can harness the energy they create. Furthermore I'd like to state that I fully support developing alternative energy sources, but I am steadfastly against the sort of panic-driven hysteria that my opponent has offered as a reason to adopt alternative energy sources in their entirety. Because the truth is the sources we have now are rather infeasible and forcibly adopting them would do much more harm than good - the technology simply isn't ready. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent offered relatively weak reasons for why the United States should change energy production sources. Furthermore I offered evidence that forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources would be economically disastrous and infeasible as the technology is not ready for commercialization. (1) - http://www.nytimes.com... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://e360.yale.edu... (4) - http://www.worldcoal.org... (5) - http://www.nytimes.com...

47

bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00003-000

Is homework beneficial?

Homework is beneficial for school students I don't think homework is really beneficial to the school students. Teachers in the school have already given assignments or lessons to the students. The most crucial thing is that the students learn or gain something fruitful from the schools.Some research indicates no direct relationship between learning and homework, whereas other studies state that homework can cause stress in young students and that students from lower-income homes may not have access to the same amount of parental assistance and resources as students from higher-income homes. We just have to ensure the students score with flying colors in their exams and understanding towards all the subjects. As you can seen in above statement, homework causes stress to students. Especially in Asia region, parents like to sign up extra-classes after school for students to brush up their studies. They have to do the homework which is assigned by the teachers from school and extra-classes. If we remain in this state-quo, students will just get too stresses out and give up their studies. Is this the outcome you speculate?

35

d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00027-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Youths can test/find their own identity in violent games.

50

4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00000-000

Should everyone get a universal basic income?

Universal Basic Income 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 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 poverty By 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 work The 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 paperwork Modern 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 healthier By 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 smarter Studies has 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 rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. 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 be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

35

5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00002-000

Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Violent Video Games Society should restrict the sale and play of violent video games because children become desensitized to violence and its impact. If children are exposed to violence through media, such as violent video games. When children see violent acts in society they equate it with the non-personal response of a video game. Then those children become a danger to themselves. As children have no real picture of the devastating effects of violence in reality. The violence of video games often down plays violence. So to the child it is not very huge. Which is a major concern. It is a major concern because some children may try to emulate the violence seen in video games, thus causing harm to either themselves or others. Final thought violent video games cause violent behavior and violent acts. Below I have posted a link to better support my argument. . http://www.sciencedirect.com...

23

114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00007-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Should euthanasia be legal Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live, and to families where a family member is unable to choose death due to a lack of comprehension that they are even alive. Why is it humane to euthanize a pet that is suffering yet humans are required by law to suffer til they die.

8

e12b543e-2019-04-18T12:39:42Z-00004-000

Should abortion be legal?

Should abortion be legal Abortion should be legal. Within this four-word phrase, we already stumble upon ambiguity. When we describe abortion as "legal," do we attach any qualification? My opponent concedes we should. For instance, in cases in which the mother's health is affected by the child. I might argue that this concession already cedes the entire debate: if any instance of abortion can be considered appropriate then abortion should be considered legal. However, I will attempt a more thorough address of the Instigator's points. The instigator first claims that abortion should be illegal because abortion is equivalent to killing living humans. A complicated subject is difficult to reduce to such concise terms. Therefore, I ask of the instigator: "What is a human?" "What makes it living?" "Should we avoid ending life in and of itself?" It is my opinion that some address need be made of the the above queries before a proper debate can be entered. -A first and unedited draft by the Agonist

20

c4b5058-2019-04-18T19:48:14Z-00001-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Vegetarinism Ok then... "but biased because they are SELLING accessories for cooking with soy" That is not the only site there is for why soy is good. There are woman's health sites, like (gardenandhearth.com/Womens-Health-Beauty/Benefits-of-Soy.htm) and even educational magazine sites like (http://www.usc.edu...). There is tons of proteins of vegatables. If you go to (http://www.weightlossforall.com...)there is a chart for how much protein there is in vegetables. "You also said nothing about pesticides" Vegetables get washed before being sold. PESTICIDES Common belief: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99 Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8 Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level Many animals get pesticides in them from eating plants. People think that all of the animals get tested when usually only a small amount of them do. And if you want to know about meat vs. vegetables go to http://www.vegsource.com.... It tells you about why vegetarianism is good. But I'm not saying that only vegetarianism is good. Eating meat can be good too. It just depends on how you feel. "I stated that most vegetarians are basing they're biased against eating animal's because of random horror video's they've seen. Exibit A, at the end of Smarticles retort to me" Some vegetarians are vegetarians because of the slaughter house videos, yes. But others are because they care about their own health. CHOLESTEROL Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 percent Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15 percent Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4 percent Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9 percent Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45 percent Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90 percent Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50 percent CANCER Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times For women who eat butter and cheese 2-4 times a week: 3.25 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times. AND FINALLY, PESTICIDES Common belief: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99 Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8 Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level SOURCES FROM: http://www.vegsource.com... "If there are obviously companies you feel are not treating they're animals correctly, why not do something about THAT, instead of asking me to stop eating meat" Me and my friends are going to find these companies and get big groups of people someday and do alot about it so animals are treated fairly. I already am doing stuff about it. My friends and I all feel that animals should be treated humanely and are thinking about how we can change this. "While your at the outback, looking down on me eating my steak, your doing nothing about what your upset about." I am not going to look down at any one eating steak or any kind of animal because everyone has the right to eat meat and they can if they want to I am not going to hate them or think they are weird because they eat meat. "So, as I said previously human being's are NOT naturally designed to not eat meat" They might not be naturally designed to not eat meat but human's aren't designed to not eat vegetables. There is a reason for everything and I don't think there would not be a reason for vegetables to be on Earth. "So it is NATURAL for us to eat meat?" It is natural for us to eat meat but it is also "natural" for us to eat vegetables and fruit. There is nothing wrong with eating these. "Every living thing on this earth, will eventually die. Why not use these animal's and prolong they're use in a positive way? Yes we can use animals in a positive way, but we can do that without doing it inhumanely.

44

98eac3fb-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00003-000

Should election day be a national holiday?

Why Australia Day should be changed My opponent has mentioned that the change of date of Australia Day would not make an impact to the way Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals act towards each other so there is no point in changing the date, although they forgot to mention that protesting from Aboriginals will decrease the more respect they are shown. Secondly, after the first fleet a series of events occurred that affected the lives of Aboriginals. The stolen generation was one event that still to this day cannot be forgotten. The Europeans took aboriginal children away from their families. They were taught to reject their indigenous heritage and to adopt white culture. Every year on the 26th of January, these people are reminded of the hard time that were caused. The arrival also brought disease to the country we now call Australia which lead to many deaths of Aboriginals and Terror Staite Islanders. Smallpox, influenza and measles spread through densely populated Australian tribes. Europeans also brought alcohol and tobacco to Australia and Aborigines soon became addicted and lost touch with their culture. So the date of Australia Day should be changed so that the Aboriginals don"t have to be reminded of the abuse their ancestors went through.

13

688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00000-000

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

We should stop using fossil fuels!!! As I said, this mind-number robot does not believe the nonsense he is spewing. Given that, no one else should either.

7

c5bd6ddf-2019-04-18T18:02:46Z-00000-000

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

"Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment" 1. Murderers rarely escape and murder again There is almost no risk that murderers will escape from prison and then proceed to murder again. Murderers are housed in maximum security prisons. As shown in the previous round, the number of prisoners escaping from these facilities is extremely low. My opponent argues that 67% of inmates who break out of prison will commit serious crimes. This is not correct and my opponent has misread his own source. His source states that "67% of inmates RELEASED from state prisons in 1994" committed a serious crime within three years.[1] This statistic tells us nothing about prison escapees and is not relevant to our discussion. My opponent has not provided any evidence that murderers are escaping from prisons and harming other people. And, I have provided evidence showing that escapes from maximum security facilities are extremely rare. Thus, the evidence supports that murderers can be safely incarcerated within maximum security prisons without concern that they will escape and harm other people. 2. The Death Penalty is extraordinarily expensive In the previous rounds, I noted that the death penalty is extraordinarily expensive. Death row inmates must be housed in specialized facilities and are afforded extremely expensive judicial procedures – including lengthy pre-trial and trial phases, automatic appeals, state habeas corpus process, and federal habeas corpus protections.[2] Death row inmates aren't executed immediately. They sit on death row in these costly, specialized facilities for decades while they meander through expensive appeals processes that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. By way of example, I pointed to California which has incurred $4,000,000,000 in taxpayer costs due to the death penalty. My opponent says that because these costs are since 1978, that $4,000,000,000 is not much money. However, it is important to remember that only 13 people have been executed in California since 1978.[3] Therefore, each execution in California since 1978 has cost taxpayers $308,000,000. Consider that point again – each individual execution has cost $308 million dollars. This is an absurdly high cost. My opponent also argues that, in California, sentencing juveniles to lifetime imprisonment will cost more than the death penalty. He cites a source that states that the 2,600 juveniles serving life sentences in California will cost $6.4 billion. Unfortunately, this number proves nothing and tells us nothing. We can't compare the cost my opponent has provided with the cost of the death penalty. Why not? First, they compare different amounts of prisoners. Second, they compare different periods of time. First, we would be comparing the costs associated with two different numbers of prisoners. My opponent says 2,600 juveniles with life-terms will cost $6.4 billion. But, 2,600 prisoners is 4 times as many prisoners as there are on death row. There are 700 prisoners on death row in California. We simply can't compare these costs when they do not involve an equal number of prisoners. If we use my opponent's numbers to calculate the theoretical cost of 700 juveniles with life imprisonment, we can see the cost is $1.7 billion for 700 lifetime prisoners, which is much less than the $4 billion for 700 death row inmates. Thus, my opponent's source supports my argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life-without-parole. Second, juveniles sentenced to lifetime imprisonment are by definition under the age of 18. Assuming these prisoners live to 70, they will be imprisoned for at least 52 years. However, the death penalty has only been instituted since 1978, a period of 34 years. We can't compare costs when the costs are associated with considerably different timeframes. Thus, my opponent's source that 2,600 life-term juveniles cost $6.4 billion is not useful for comparison. If we want to compare the costs of housing death row prisoners and the costs of housing life-without-parole prisoners, we need only look at the previous rounds. In my previous round, I cited a study showing that housing an inmate on death row costs $100,000 more per year than housing that exact same prisoner in the general population of a maximum security prison.[4] This considerable extra cost does not even include the other judicial and procedural costs associated with the death penalty. I have shown that the death penalty is incredibly costly. It wastes taxpayer dollars by requiring specialized facilities to house death row inmates and wasteful judicial processes, appeals, and petitions. These costs can be easily eliminated by simply removing the death penalty. These taxpayer savings could then be utilized in areas that would be more beneficial to society – such as police enforcement and prisoner rehabilitation. 3. Erroneous conviction of innocent people is morally unacceptable The death penalty imposes an enormous moral cost on society. Not only does the death penalty presume that society has a right to take human life, but it presumes that society finds it acceptable to take innocent human life in the pursuit of exacting its retribution. The criminal justice system is fallible, and as many as 20,000 current U.S. prisoners are predicted to be innocent.[5] Very few of these prisoners will be exonerated because the criminal justice system is not designed to help free innocent people. Some of these prisoners, and some in the past, are innocent individuals who will lose their lives because of erroneous convictions. My opponent says life-without-parole is the same as execution because in both cases "they get their lives taken away from them." I will not contribute a new argument in this final round, but I will respond that it is clear that these two punishments are not equivalent. In one case, a person has been killed and can clearly no longer experience life. In the other case, a person is alive and able to experience life, but confined within a particular space. These are very different punishments. While it is horrible to think that an innocent person could be sentenced to life-without-parole, it is even worse to think that they might be executed. In one case, that innocent person would still be able to experience life. In the other, all opportunity for any experience has been snuffed out. The criminal justice system is an imperfect system created and run by imperfect people. Tens of thousands of individuals have been wrongfully convicted due to eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, unvalidated forensic science, government misconduct, and bad lawyering.[6] When the risk of error is so high – even more so amongst the poor – it is morally unacceptable to have a punishment that is so extreme. CONCLUSION As my opponent properly states, the death penalty comes down to two issues: (1) financial costs, and (2) moral costs. Both of these costs could be eliminated by using life-without-parole instead of the death penalty. The financial costs of the death penalty are enormous. These billions of dollars could instead be used to improve education, police enforcement, healthcare, prisoner rehabilitation, or any other number of valuable societal goals. The moral costs of the death penalty are also unacceptable. The death penalty is retributive. Death row inmates are already imprisoned and no threat to society at large. They cannot escape. Executing them serves only to exact societal revenge. When so many innocent people are constantly being convicted of crimes they did not commit, it is morally unacceptable to have a draconian form of criminal punishment that will invariable kill innocent people, stealing away their lives and their experiences. Together, these two immense costs weigh heavily against the death penalty. The death penalty provides society with no clear benefits, and only serves to burden it. Removing the death penalty and applying life-without-parole will lift that burden and free society to use its financial and moral resources toward more valuable pursuits.

45

6bd7aa3b-2019-04-18T15:57:23Z-00000-000

Should the penny stay in circulation?

the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs I believe that in his mind, the resolution reads: the u. s should stay out of foreign affairs militarily. That seems to be the major point my opponent is arguing. Unfortunately, that is not the resolution we are debating. We are debating whether the U. S should stay out of foreign affairs. This not only includes militarily, but also economically, intelligence gathering and influence efforts. This is keeping in mind that the foreign affairs is commonly defined as matters having to do with international relations and with the interests of the home country in foreign countries. My opponent seems to be arguing solely that we should not get involved in military conflicts in other countries. That is a completely different discussion from debating on whether or not the U. S. should stay out of foreign affairs. Perhaps my opponent wants to start a resolution stating that the U. S. should not give aid to other countries financially. Up to this point, my opponent has listed 3 countries in which our aid or military efforts had a negative or null result. Throughout the entire debate I asked my opponent to explain how such a minuscule amount of examples could possibly justify banning our activities in regards to foreign affairs on a global scale, but even now he has failed to do so. Egypt's government collapsing is a reason we should stop all of our foreign affairs on a global scale? That is absurd. My opponent then goes on to say that ". .. as for guarding raw materials like oil from insurgents and para-military groups that's not intervention in a foreign conflict that's protecting what's ours we paid for it so naturally we want to protect what belongs to us. "This statement alone shows my opponents true intentions, which is that he is against intervention in foreign conflicts. This is not the same as involvement in foreign affairs, and this is why we now see him arguing for a resolution that isn't here. I would suggest my opponent create a new debate resolution with a topic more appropriate to his actual position. Taking the position of being against foreign affairs is indeed against globalization, intelligence gathering, influence efforts and political relationships between world leaders. At this point, there is no reason why we should stay out of foreign affairs when in reality my opponent only wishes to stay out of military conflicts, which in itself is an entirely different debate. At this point, there has been no good reasons for stopping our current foreign affair practices as we are currently in a globalized economy and world as a whole.

39

51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00004-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing that the US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I would like more my opponent to note that I agree that the US Federal government should raise the minimum wage one dollar every year until we get to 10 dollars in order to make small businesses adjust to the wages. Now, I will begin my case. -------------------------------------- Democracy Advantage: Before, I begin to state the statistics on how many people in America support an increase in the minimum wage; I want to stress the importance of this argument. The Founding Fathers intended for our representatives to listen to what the American people want. These are one of the fundamental principles of America, and what defined our country in the 1700s as a democratic nation. My opponent is libertarian. If there is anything libertarians, liberals, and conservatives can agree with; it is that we should all be able to agree that when 76% of Americans agree on simple legislation that should be passed, than the government is obligated to listen and pass the legislation a majority of Americans want to be passed. If the government does not listen to the pleas of the American people, than our democracy is not functioning properly. 76% of Americans support raising the minimum wage. A great majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 dollars an hour. I offer this question to my opponent. I believe that if the government continues to deny the pleas to raise the minimum wage, than how can we still call ourselves a functional democracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits: My opponent is of the few in America that claim that raising the minimum wage will hurt jobs. I will debunk this popular myth in this contention. Note that 73 million people are paid hourly wages. 1. Improved living standards: The first benefit is that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 16.5 million low-wage workers would benefit from a $10.10-per-hour wage, including 900,000 workers who would climb above the poverty threshold. A more recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government- and state-sponsored financial-aid programs --------------------------------- 2. Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.80 by July 1, 2014, would raise the wages of about 28 million workers who would receive nearly 40 billion dollars in additional wages over the phase in period. ------------------------------------ 3. GDP has been proven to increase roughly by 25 billion dollar resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net jobs. -------------------------------------- 4. Around 54% of affected worker work full time, over 70% are in families with incomes of less than 60,000 dollars, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married. ------------------------------------------------ 5. The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family's total income. ----------------------------------------------------------- 6. The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics" claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. In fact, throughout the nation, minimum-wage increases would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe: Europe is also a good example of how the minimum wage actually benefits workers more than it harms workers. -Great Britain's minimum wage is $10.31 an hour. There GDP is 2.8 trillion dollars. There are 4.9 million small businesses that are fully capable of managing this wage without loosing jobs. -Germany's minimum wage is $11.50 an hour. Germany's GDP is 3.85 trillion dollars. -France's minimum wage is $10.70 an hour. France's GDP is 2.83 trillion dollars. -Australia's minimum wage is $10.50 an hour. Australia's GDO is 1.45 trillion dollars. - America's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. America's GDP is 17.48 trillion dollars. I offer my opponent these questions. -Why is it that America was the wealthiest country in that list, yet had the lowest federal minimum wage? -Why is America able to access an abundant amount of benefits from raising the minimum wage, and the government is still not pass it into law? -Why is it that that the US Federal Government will not raise the minimum wage when 76% of Americans believe that it is the right thing to do? I look forward to these answers. It is up to my opponent whether to address these questions in his case or rebuttal. Sources: . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.msnbc.com... . http://www.bing.com... . http://www.timeforaraise.org...

29

6d359933-2019-04-18T14:06:36Z-00004-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

We should allow illegal immigrants to stay I will be arguing that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in America. The first half of this response will focus on pointing out the flaws in Con's assertion. 1) "Illegal immigrants are blood sucking from America". Grammatical mistakes aside, this statement is a metaphor (I hope) and its meaning is null without rigorous explanation. 2) "They are on welfare". If the illegal immigrants you are concerned with are primarily Hispanic, then this statement is null and void of argument. According to statisticbrain.com, only 15.7% of all Americans on welfare are Hispanic or Latin@ in origin. Even if every single one of these people was an illegal immigrant (which I'm sure is a gross overestimation), then the ratio of Illegals on Welfare to Citizens on Welfare would be 3 : 17, or nearly six times more Legal American citizens than illegal americans. 3) "They steal jobs". Or, they go out and get jobs while the white American citizen feels too entitled to work such terrible jobs. Jobs like construction and janitorial services and waste management are, in fact, terrible jobs! But immigrants are willing to work those terrible jobs, which is why they receive them. 4) "They kill our white race". According to statistics released by the FBI, 83% of homicides of white victims, were committed by white offenders. In fact, the percentage of white victims killed by Hispanic or other criminals is less that 3%! This statement is flat out wrong. Now I will argue why I feel illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the US. 1) The US was founded by illegal immigrants. No one ever asked the Native American people for permission to live in North America, and in fact European settlers were responsible for a mass genocide of Native Americans. According to David Stannard, American historian and Professor of American Studies at the University of Hawaii, the European Settlers were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million Native Americans. We are all illegal immigrants. 2) "Liberty and Justice for All" does not mean "Liberty and Justice for native-born American citizens". 3) American culture will be positively influenced by the mixing of immigrant culture and what we have now. 4) Like I said before, immigrants are willing to work in jobs that entitled American citizens will not. 5) Let me list for you the names of some American immigrants: Wyclef Jean, Albert Einstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Aldous Huxley, Bruce Willis, and Bob Marley, to name a few.

2

b62db6e9-2019-04-18T15:15:06Z-00006-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Smoking cigarettes should be made illegal. Thank you for the debate. I will argue that cigarettes shouldn't be made illegal.Cigarettes are a ChoiceThe consumer has the option to not smoke. All the information regarding the horrible consequences of cigarettes is readily available to them. Even on the package it is told to them. Proof is here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Addicts become addicts completely on their own will. It is also not an addiction like cocaine. You can completely quit smoking or known as "cold turkey." This isn't safe to do after a heavy addiction to cocaine. In fact, to quit smoking, all you need to do is quit smoking. Here is proof from an unbiased site (many sites will advertise their product, but his provides genuine research): http://whyquit.com... Cigarettes are profit A lot of tax dollars come from cigarettes. A lot of businesses rely on cigarettes (and also plenty that rely on people trying to quit). To completely ban them, you would severely impact the economy in a harmful way. 17.6 billion dollars were made from taxes in the year 2012 from cigarettes in the United States alone. This information can be found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... Here is a list of businesses that would completely go under if cigarettes were banned, or at least suffer in the United States: http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov... This is not including anybody that profits from helping addicts quit smoking.Second Hand SmokeSecond hand smoke is indeed a real problem, however it can be solved. We don't need to ban cigarettes to keep non smokers safe from them. We need to add more regulations where it is acceptable to smoke. Here you can see a list of laws passed aimed at protecting people from second hand smoke: http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... Many of these laws prevent smoke from ever polluting the air in the first place. This is also a side effect of taxes. Higher taxes on a good decrease the amount of the good sold. You can argue that more regulations are needed, but banning smoking would do more harm than good.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://whyquit.com...3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...4. http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov...5. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...

20

39d70d06-2019-04-18T18:53:26Z-00004-000

Is drinking milk healthy for humans?

Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life 1) There is no nutrient in meat that cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. No one can deny this. 2) There is no disease where eating meat is required for the treatment or cure of the disease. 3) Therefore, eating meat is absolutely unnecessary. 4) Eating meat causes death to other animals, obviously. And, despite attempts to make slaughter "humane", whether it be "kosher", "halal" or otherwise, it quite probably, or even certainly, causes stress and pain as well. 5) Therefore, eating meat is immoral and unethical. And abhorrently selfish, since the person who eats meat does so only for the hedonistic and temporary satisfaction of his taste buds. Especially when there are so many vegetarian and tasteful alternatives (from meatless and healthful soy products to traditional Indian dishes). 6) There is more than enough cruelty in the world as it is; there is no need to add to it, unnecessarily. The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20,000,000 Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20% Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80% Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95% Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90% How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000 Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16 he Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75% Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85% Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260,000,000 Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75% Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times. The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15% Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9% Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45% Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90% Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50% The Natural Resources Argument Uses of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a U.S. Navy Destroyer Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000 Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78 To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2 Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33% Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2% The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55% Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13% Percentage resistant in 1988: 91% Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Common misconception: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99% Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8% Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?) Sources... http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com...

32

3475075c-2019-04-18T17:14:09Z-00002-000

Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

Resolved: in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory I agree with the definitions posited by the Negative, with one slight exception. The Negative defines "ought" as "expressing obligation." I would suggest that "ought" expresses moral desirability, particularly as "ought" implies a value judgment. For example, the statements "you ought not to steal the cookies" and "you ought to go and see your grandmother" are statements that connote what is the most morally desirable course of action. The statement is obligation you to go and see your grandmother, but it is implying that it is the moral thing to do. I will now present the AC: FDR once declared, "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves, and the only way they could do this is by not voting." Because I agree, I affirm the resolution. I Value Governmental Legitimacy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, "legitimacy is negative: it offers an account of when effective authority ceases to be legitimate." Stanford goes on to claim that a government ceases to be legitimate when it no longer respects the rights of its citizenry, specifically those rights enumerated in UDHR. Prefer this debate as the resolution is essentially questioning whether voting needs to be universal for a democratic government to remain legitimate. I propose the Criterion of Promoting Electoral Equality, as ensuring that no one group dominates at the polls, and thus holds undue sway over the government. For example, if group A votes more than group B, elected officials will favor group A, maybe even to the point of impinging on group B's rights. My thesis is that compulsory voting is key to promoting electoral equality. Contention One: Low voter turnout threatens democracy and governmental legitimacy. "In a modern democracy, it is ultimately the will of the people expressed through periodic elections that decide the fate of the people. In practical terms, modern democracy has come to mean government based on majority rule. The leaders acquire political power and strength because the people's power is vested in them through elections--If voter turnout is very poor and if votes are split by too many candidates contesting a seat, the government ceases to be majority rule. In such situations, it is the minority of voters who run the government. This goes counter to the principle of majority rule, which is an important ingredient of democracy. An effective remedy to meet this deficiency is to find an alternative to the first-past-the-post system." [1] "U.S. elections are not even particularly well-designed polls because they are not based on a representative sample of eligible voters. Rather, they rely on a racially and socioeconomically skewed sample. Because of this, America could actually achieve a more representative government by doing away with the current election system, and instead polling a large, representative sample of eligible voters, despite the fact that such a mechanism for selecting government leaders seems inherently unfair and might violate the Equal Protection Clause. Given how limited the franchise was until the twentieth century, and the low rates of voter turnout in recent decades, it is likely that no U.S. President has ever received a majority of the votes of the American adult population. In the 1984 election, for example, Ronald Reagan won a "landslide" victory, but received the votes of only 32.9% of the potential electorate. The preferences of the other 67.1% of eligible voters were either for a different candidate or simply left unaccounted for...fundamentally, there is a serious tension with the understanding "that within our constitutional tradition, democracy is prized because of the value of collective self-governance," which is as much about procedure as it is about substance. Indeed, the level of voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters in many recent elections would not even be sufficient to constitute a quorum for some of the most important American political institutions...Partly because of disparities in turnout rates by demographic categories, the center of political gravity has shifted toward the wealthiest white Americans." [2] Contention Two: Compulsory voting will help alleviate these problems. Sub-point A: Turnout will likely go up: "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946." [3] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law. Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17% of the world's democratic nations. The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Higher vote turn out will combat the problems named in Contention One. Sub-point B: Reduced Polarization: "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized - some might say hyper-polarized - by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [4] Sub-point C: More inclusive: "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent--Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [5 Thus, I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution. I shall rebut the NC more in-depth in my next speech, but just a few quick notes: C1: Firstly, voting is a civic responsibility; everyone should do it. It is not some onerous imposition upon your freedom, rather, mandatory voting is simply formalizing the responsibility that you should have been meeting before. Additionally, autonomy is too often used as an excuse to ignore that civic duty. Secondly, your actually increase your autonomy by voting. Voting is a check against government becoming too intrusive; voting protects minority rights; and permits you to freely express your choice and your voice in governmental decision-making. C2: Neg gives no evidence regarding how much his reforms will actually boost turnout. Even if we educate people, that doesn't mean that they'll vote more. But education of voters isn't unqiue to the Neg, it's permutation of my advocacy. In the Aff world people can be educated and mandated to vote, ensuring high poll turnout and informed voters. And who says compulsory voting has to be hard; all of my opponent's suggestions could be incorporated into my own case. How about online compulsory voting, or house-to-house aid, or rides to polling places for those in need. My point is that everything Neg has suggested is non-unique; I can do it too. Coupled with complusions on voting, these measures would cause turnout to be even higher and would make voters far more educated. V/C: Autonomy is important, but the impact on society as a whole is also key. Gov. Legit. would maximize both. The criterion is circular logic. Aristotle says we shouldn't be forced to do things. Autonomy is self-direction. Basically, Neg is supporting autonomy with autonomy. Plus, I can link, as voting promotes freedom. Sources: [1] T. S. Krishna Murthy, Chief Election Commissioner of India, 2012, "The Relevance of Voting Rights in Modern Democracy," Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 2 Wake Forest J. L. & Pol'y 337, p. 347 [2] Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 [3] Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 [4] Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 [5] Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 [6] Dean Machin, University of Warwick, 2011, "Compulsory Turnout: A Compelling (and Contingent) Case," Politics, Vol. 31 (2), p.1

15

b5e9eaa8-2019-04-18T15:24:16Z-00004-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Commercial Debate This commercial connects with people viewing on a personal, emotional level. It gets its point across that we all have a story to tell and it's worth telling.;

48

333e20c0-2019-04-18T12:52:53Z-00001-000

Should the voting age be lowered?

Driving age should be lowered I think the driving age should be left alone because most people are mature at age of 16 and any younger i feel like they are immature and not responsiable

16

8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00015-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

Creating a mentality of illness Advertising to patients promotes a 'pill for every ill' mentality as the drug industry seeks to 'create' new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers' stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1]   [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission's Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

23

e21a5027-2019-04-18T15:31:39Z-00004-000

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Euthanasia should be legal You make some very good arguments, I'll try my best to counter them! I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying in regards to the intrinsic/extrinsic social valuing of life. I am not saying that we should keep people alive because we can construe purpose for their lives, I am saying that as a society we should preserve life because it is life, irrespective of the presence of purpose. On a society-wide level, legalising euthanasia establishes that life is only valuable insofar as it is desired, which would make it extrinsic. This is a poisonous attitude to any civil society as it does not respect the human individual, only what they can do or provide. "Why are you so hung up on making this person want to be alive?" Because it is a loving action to do, helping someone find enjoyment in life is a better solution than killing them. I am arguing that it would be a negative step to allow people to choose to die when they wish. People may currently hate their existence on earth but death is permanent, once you are euthanised there is no going back. Honestly I find it hard to imagine that someone depressed enough to be feeling suicidal has the right mental capacity to make such a huge and irreversible choice. If someone is so depressed that they don't want to live anymore, then we should help them change their mind and see the endless potential that life has. As Jules Verne said, 'where there is life there is hope', death is the ultimate way to 'give up' which seems irrational in a world where medical science is advancing so rapidly that cures for seemingly incurable illnesses could just be months away at any given time. I'm sure that Stephen Hawking, when he first descended into invalidity, often decided that he would rather die than live with with ALS. If euthanasia had been legal he could have very possibly been killed and the world would have lost one of the greatest physicists of the century. "However having the option to end your life instead of seek treatment isn't going to cause every single sick person to off themselves." Of course, not everyone will choose to be euthanised. But in the Netherlands it is increasingly becoming the norm for cancer sufferers to seek euthanasia instead of fighting through it (1). People with serious illnesses generally aren't particularly optimistic, and many people will be killed by euthanasia whereas if it was not an option they could have survived and lived fulfilling lives, despite them not even considering a good outcome when they were in the depths of their suffering. "With the medicine we have today, we're able to contain the virus or bacteria or whatever outside of the host's body, so even without a person with the virus, we're still able to conduct tests and research on it." True, but there would be little motivation to do so. If it became normal to be euthanised when suffering from a deadly disease then it would seem less important to find cures. Why is this? Because the point of a cure is to prevent death. If people are asking for death when suffering from said disease, what is the point in finding a cure when many people are content to do without? "If people become less affected by suicide, then good. The way society is evolving is in such a way that moral values should be logically thought out before acting upon them. The death of a loved one will always be upsetting, however if we know they chose this path, and aren't suffering anymore, there should be no logical reason to be upset about it." Suicide is one of the most tragic things that exists in this world; that someone can become so depressed and despairing that they decide to destroy their life. It is logical to assert the immorality of suicide because if it was not, depressed people will not feel obstructed to end their life, despite depression being temporary and mentally-incapacitating to the extent that they cannot be responsible for such a huge decision, which suicide is. I very much doubt that you could find a single person who considered suicide, changed their mind and regretted doing so. Sexual consent is only valid when the partner is in the right mental capacity, so why should suicide-consent be different? On a metaphysical scale, it is also an assumption that death is preferable to suffering whilst alive. The experience of death (or lack thereof) is eschatologically verifiable; so how then can suicide or euthanasia be an informed decision when we only know what one of the alternatives is like? "they wouldn't have helped society anyway. They're happy and we lost someone who didn't want to help us anyway" That is what I was saying in round 1, legalising euthanasia makes people value human life simply because of the value or help they provide to society, not simply because it is life and is good in and of itself. "Keep in mind with your example and others like it, that it wouldn't be euthanasia that caused her death. It would be her own choice. She wants to now, she would want to if euthanasia was legalised. If you say she does bring great joy to her family, I'm sure she would be able to gain their acceptance of her choice if she does decide to end it all. Also, this may be very selfish on our behalf, as we expect the elderly to suffer and dislike their existence simply so we can benefit from their knowledge." The thing is, she goes through a few weeks feeling suicidal, but then recovers and lives life happily for a few months. If we acted upon her cognitively-doubtful decision when she was depressed then she would be deprived of all the happiness she gets when not under the influence of mental illness. Ultimately, euthanasia is far too big a choice to be assumed to be rationally made by people who are mentally sick. "Also, judging by how The Netherlands have legalised euthanasia, the elderly wouldn't be able to end it all simply because they're old. There would need to be a lot more going on." Yes, they wouldn't be able to end their life simply due to old age, but the vast majority of old people have some ailment or another that could be exploited to justify them seeking to end their life out of martyrdom. "As you can see in The Netherlands, euthanasia is legal and regulated, with several heavy requirements to follow through [1]. The point that stands out for me is #5 - There must be no other reasonable solutions to the problem. This implies that if a "cure" is available, or if it is possible to continue medical research and procedures on the subject, the chance of being accepted for euthanizing is significantly lower. I'm sure we would see similar laws if euthanasia is legalised in North America." Theoretically the law works satisfactorily, but evidence would suggest that the Netherlands is sliding down a slippery slope towards more liberal euthanasia laws. (2) This source suggests that we cannot ring-fence voluntary euthanasia killings without overflows into non-voluntary euthanasia. The simple fact is that doctors are only human; giving them the extraordinary power to grant others life and death does not make them into responsible moral agents. Doctors are physicians not ethicists and cannot be relied upon to relate to suicidal people's wishes and inclinations because they simply aren"t trained for it. This is why in the Netherlands doctors are increasingly being persuaded by relatives and patients to bend the rules or even outright break them, because doctors aren"t professionally endowed to judge non-medical issues. Continuing on the subject of doctors, to ask them to kill patients is to violate the Hippocratic Oath, the vow that maintains the integrity of their whole profession. When people train to be doctors they say that they want to save lives, not destroy them. (1) http://www.mercatornet.com... (2)http://www.bioethics.org.au...

16

9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00012-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

All drugs should be decriminalised Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else

39

40f0bed0-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00002-000

Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

Labor Regulations While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a "living wage," increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.

34

ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00001-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. -My opponent has asked me to give the sources for my contentions, which I have previously provided. However, before my opponent can request for additional information, he himself must first fully reciprocate his requests. Moving on to refute my opponents contentions... 1."Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications..." -My opponent has not given any sources to support this contention, so it should be voided. Moreover, this has a positive impact on the United States because it becomes an incentive to use the social networking sites with respect for others. When an individual has to learn the potential consequences by receiving them, it is much better. 2. "Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike..." - That is an individuals choice, and the social networking site neither forces them nor hypnotizes individuals into wanting to waste 233 million hours of their time [as you so eloquently stated.] -You still have failed to give a citation for these statistic. 3. "Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites..." -Once again, you didn't give an accessible source for the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire statistic or your FBI source. Moreover, the resolution states "social networking Web sites." This is referring to the intended usage of them from creation. Therefore, [because they were not created to have underage users, or have sexual predators prey on the naive,] it is not the fault of the websites, but their irresponsible users. 4. "Also a major issue is cyber bullying..." - Again, the site was used in an inappropriate manner so it should not be blamed on the social networking site. Thank you for the link. However, the statistics do not specifically state social networking websites. However, it does say "Savvy students are using Instant Messaging, e-mails, chat rooms and websites they create to humiliate a peer." As a result, these statistics do not belong in this debate. 5. "83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result." -I would like to remind you that did not give an accessible source. Moreover, you said "Unknown." Individuals should remain responsible for themselves, and downloading unknown files is not at all responsible, which once again leads me to proclaim that social networking websites should not be held accountable for something like that. 6."Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites." - In everything in life, there is a rule of thumb. Placing extremely sensitive information is by no means in accordance to the rule of thumb concerning social networking websites. Social networking websites should not be held accountable for something like that. To my own contentions: Source for definitions: [http://jcmc.indiana.edu...] 1. Economically positive [http://www.surepayroll.com...] [http://uk.reuters.com...] "When SurePayroll asked small business owners if they believe online social networking has a place in the business world, 55% said yes." That is more than 50%, leading me to conclude that they are good for businesses. ["It is no longer just an outlet for personal use -- it's rapidly becoming a must for business success," says Rohrer] John Palfrey [Professor of Law and Vice Dean, Harvard Law School] and Urs Gasser [Associate Professor of Law, University of St. Gallen]. Born Digital. New York: Basic Books. 2008. p. 103. "Technology companies have a strong incentive to keep young people safe online. The most popular online environments, such as social network sites, make money from advertising. These companies want to keep their young customers on their site for as long as possible, and they want them to visit as frequently as possible, so that they can present them with advertisements, which in turn pay for the operation of the site. The safer the young people perceive these sites to be, the more time they are likely to spend there. The same goes for sites for young children, except that in this case it is the parents who appreciate safety online and allow the children to participate. In many cases, the people who work for technology companies want to keep people safe because, as parents themselves, they simply want to do the right thing." - You stated, "First of all, this claim is not backed by a statistic. Similar to one of my opponent's contentions in Round 1, in order for us to weigh this impact, we need to have a sense of the relative impact that this is having. Without these statistics, we are forced to judge from an uncertain viewpoint. In addition, these "effects" that social networking sites have are not unique. They can be replicated with phones, IM, chat rooms, fax, email, etc. The exchange of communication that my opponent describes could just as easily have been done with any of the aforementioned methods, rendering this actual impact little-to-none." However, [http://www.isafe.org...] "Savvy students are using Instant Messaging, e-mails, chat rooms and websites they create to humiliate a peer. No longer can parents count on seeing the tell-tale physical signs of bullying—a black eye, bloody lip, torn clothes. But the damage done by cyber bullies is no less real, and can be infinitely more painful." Nowhere over here does it talk of social networking site. Therefore confirming "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States." -You did not give an accessible source to you refutation containing statistics. 2. Political impact [http://www.boston.com...] "Also, when evaluating the impact of this, one must also consider that an extra method for a politician to campaign that is useful once every four years does not have a large impact in the grand scheme of things." When this positive impact of the social networking websites is compiled with the others, it goes to show that the impact is more than positive. "Some election specialists and campaign officials believe the early voting dates may lower turnout among college students, but the candidates are trying to counter that by using... social networking sites like Facebook to stay tethered to their supporters." 3. Enhancement of our democracy [http://www.law.cornell.edu...] -I was not referring to the legality of social networking sites, but rather the fact that they stand for all America is. As they do that, they also enhance our democracy. 4. Social impact [http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...][http://www.eharmony.com...] -On average 236 Eharmony members marry everyday. This is just one site which goes to show that social networking websites obviously have a positive impact on the United States. "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States." As the Pro [Affirmative] representative of this debate, I have obviously proved that the social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. As a result, I feel that I have won this debate.

30

e7d7847e-2019-04-18T18:33:37Z-00001-000

Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

More guns less crime I will start off demonstrating coneal carry permits lowers crime. According to a 2000 study by John Lott, PhD, "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992.[1]In 1998, John Lott, PhD, published More Guns, Less Crime which concluded that the "shall-issue" laws correlated with a decrease in violent crime. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992.Concealed handguns are an effective non-lethal form of self-defense a majority of the time. An Autumn 1995 peer-reviewed study by Gary Kleck, PhD, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found that when someone draws a concealed gun in self-defense, the criminal simply retreats 55.5% of the time.I like blue leters :PSo much of the time no shot is fired on either side. Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Texas A&M University, and H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, Policy Analyst at National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote in the Nov. 17, 1997 brief analysis "No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws:" "Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in gun ownership. Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences claimed by critics. In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership. Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea. Now that the evidence is in, we know that concealed carry is a social good."[2]Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, "[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation. [3]So guns save lives. In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed. [3]explains itself. Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals -- it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI's Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade. [3]DIfferent numbers, same idea, guns save lives, and lower crime. Instead of the more guns less crime 8% it is 30%. I do not know which is correct, but both show more guns less crime But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida's total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas' violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law. [3]same stuff...Think about it. Nearly 8,000 of our fellow citizens have died between 1992 and 1996 because of the irrational fear that law-abiding Americans would abuse their right to self defense. In fact concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public. For example, Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders. [3]so the argument "people with those permits are evil" is false. Both of my parents have these permits and are not evil.Now an overal more guns less crime:However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics that should cause the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low. [4]So when more people bought guns (gun sales rose) crime ropped. Back to conceal weapons:when these laws where passed this happened:Shall Issue Conceal Carry Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggrivated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%.Numbers from my 5th source. In short, More Guns Less Crime. A constant drop in crime rate by adapting a concealed carry law is simplistic. The drop actually varies in size depending on how many guns are carried. There is no free lunch. People actually have to protect the community for the community to be protected. [5]Now back to a , gun control raises crime:Everyone in DC now knows that murder rates rose after the handgun ban and fell after they were removed. Unfortunately, Chicago never learned that lesson. The forthcoming third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows that in the 17 years after its ban on new handguns went into effect, there are only two years where Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. Chicago's murder rate fell relative to other largest 50 largest cities prior to the ban and rose relative to them afterwards. For example, Chicago's murder rate went from equalling the average for those other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992 and by 68 percent in 2002. There is no year after the ban that Chicago's murder rate fared as well relative to other cities as it did in 1982.[6]SO when handguns where banned crime went up. It shouldn't be to surprising that Chicago's murder rates rose after the ban. Every time gun bans have been tried murder rates have risen. In the United States, gun ban proponents have blamed this failure on easy access to guns in nearby states. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give gun control supporters such as Mayor Daley and some of the members of the Supreme Court some pause. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales the experience has been the same. Not only didn't murder rates decline as promised, but the rates actually increased. [6]So the chicago murder rates rose after the ban, same with wales and england. And according to this all gun bans! I dissgaree though, I bet a few gun bans have helped but overall they do not. COnslusion:more guns less crime, less guns more crime. I hope I have proved this well enough. VOTE PRO Sources:more guns less crime by john R Lott [1]Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Texas A&M University, and H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, [2]http://www.humanevents.com... [3]http://prevarication.net... [4]http://polyticks.com... [5]http://biggovernment.com... [6]

15

f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00048-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

All negative points A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. The medical and scientific evidence is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.[1][2] Since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[3] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe.[4] Vaccination has almost eradicated polio.[5] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[6] Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.[7] Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[8][9] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[9] Other critics argue that immunity given by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.[3] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[10] Children who survive diseases such as diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[11] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[12] [edit] Population health Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[13] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[14] [edit] Cost-effectiveness Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[15] [edit] Events following reductions in vaccination In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.[16][17] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated.[18] Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74) An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[19] In a postwar poster the Ministry of Health urged British residents to immunize children against diphtheria.UK, DPT (1970s–80s) A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[16] Sweden, pertussis (1979–96) In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[17] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[20] Netherlands, measles (1999–2000) An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[21] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries. UK and Ireland, measles (2000) As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.[22] From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[23] Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward) In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[24] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[25] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[26] Indiana, USA, measles (2005) A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated.[27] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[28] [edit] Safety Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[29] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people, and people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments. As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.[30] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study, and subsequent studies by the same group, have inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. There is scientific evidence that in rare cases immunizations can cause adverse events, such as oral polio vaccine causing paralysis. Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[1] Although the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism are biologically implausible, it would be hard to study scientifically whether autism is less common in children who do not follow recommended vaccination schedules, due to the ethics of basing experiments on withholding vaccines from children, and due to the likely differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children.[31] [edit] Vaccine overload Vaccine overload is the assertion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immune system, and lead to adverse effects. It has been presented as a cause for autism. Although no scientific evidence supports this idea, it has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[32] The idea has several flaws.[31] For example, common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[33] Also, because of changes in vaccine formulation, the number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to U.S. children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[31] Numerous studies have tested the assertion that "vaccine overload" damages the immune system, generally by studying whether vaccination increases the risk of acquiring other (non-vaccine-preventable) infectious diseases. These studies have repeatedly found that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.[34] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[35] [edit] Thiomersal Main article: Thiomersal controversy In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of U.S. and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[36] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[36] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[37] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[38] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[39] [edit] MMR vaccine Main article: MMR vaccine controversy In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[40] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[41] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[42] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[43] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[44] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[45] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[46] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors.[47] The CDC,[48] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[49] and the UK National Health Service[50] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2] A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[51] [edit] Prenatal infection There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[52] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[53] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[54] their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters; their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women; the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations. Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[54] [edit] Aluminum Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[55] Although the quantities of aluminum ingested in this way are much smaller than the quantities ingested from other sources such as infant formula,[56] questions have been raised about the safety of aluminum used in vaccines.[57] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[55] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[58] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[58] [edit] Individual liberty Further information: Vaccination policy Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to themselves and others.[3][59] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual's optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[60] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[61] [edit] Religion Main article: Vaccination and religion Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.[62] Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.[61] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[63] [edit] Alternative medicine Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[10] Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[64] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic.[65] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[64] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[65] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[65] While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,[64] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[66] Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination responsibly, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.[65] A survey of a 1999–2000 cross section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which does not formally teach antivaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than first-years, with 29.4% of fourth-years opposing vaccination.[67] Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.[68] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[10] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[10] [edit] Financial motives Critics of vaccines state that the profit motive explains why vaccination is required, and that vaccine makers cover up or suppress information, or generate misinformation, about safety or effectiveness.[3] Some vaccine critics allegedly have financial motives for criticizing vaccines.[45] Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit.[69] In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins.[70] The number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined, with only Merck, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi continuing major production. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. government agencies.[71] In the early 21st century the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar (a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), along with a small number of other highly-priced blockbuster vaccines such as Gardasil and Pediarix that each provided sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.[70] [edit] Dispute resolution Main article: Vaccine court The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It is funded by a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines sold in the country and was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[37] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[72] Thousands of cases of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[37] In 2008 the government conceded one case concerning a child who had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and whose autism-like symptoms came after five simultaneous injections against nine diseases.[73] [edit] History Edward JennerReligious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edward Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[62] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs.[74] After Jenner's work, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[75] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory for all infants in 1853, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. After an 1867 law extended the requirement to age 14 years, its opponents focused concern on infringement of individual freedom, and eventually a 1898 law allowed for conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination.[3] In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[76] Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure. In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[77] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox). 1904 cartoon opposing the mandatory vaccination law in Brazil. "The Congress", depicted as a Roman Caesar, threatens "the People", in rags, with a sharp object and shackles.Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885. John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries) emerged as a major financer and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.[78] He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia on October, 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the League was organized later that month, Pitcairn was chosen to be its first president.[79] On December 1, 1911, he was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission, and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the Commission's conclusions.[79] He continued to be a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916. In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly-explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect; vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features such as urban renewal that many had opposed for years.[80] In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[81] Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist

37

7864ca28-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00006-000

Is cell phone radiation safe?

do smart phones make kids dumber Last year the Librarian of Congress warned that texting was responsible for a drastic decline in American sentences, but that opinion wasn't backed up by any scientific evidence. Now, a team of Australian psychologists has come a step closer to proving that mobile phones are destroying our ability to think. The researchers show that children who use mobile phones respond to higher-level cognitive tasks faster, but less accurately, than those who don't. 94% of Australians use cell phones, and the cognitive psychologists were testing for the negative effects of exposure to mobile phone radiation, especially among children, whose brains are still developing. In addition to fears that cell phones cause cancer, one earlier study found that school-age children who had been exposed to mobile phones as infants or in utero were almost twice as likely to be hyperactive or disruptive as those whose parents used land lines. The good news is that radio waves from mobile phones won't fry young brains or turn kids into delinquents. The bad news is, cell phones actually make children dumb (M. J. Abramson, G. P. Benke, C. Dimitriadis, I. O. Inyang, M. R. Sim, R. S. Wolfe, and R. J. Croft, "Mobile telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive function in young adolescents" Bioelectromagnetics 30.6 [early view, August, 2009]). Of the 317 seventh-graders who participated in the Australian study, 77% owned their own mobile phone and almost all the rest had used one. The children reported an average of eight calls and eight text messages a week, with heavy users logging as many as fifteen. Even though these figures seem low -- what 13-year-old would acknowledge receiving so few texts? -- those who used cell phones more responded to a battery of cognitive tests much faster, and much less accurately, than those who seldom called or texted, or those who didn't use mobiles at all. Specifically, the psychologists found that as mobile phone use increased, children learned to perform tasks more quickly, but their ability to remember things declined: "The accuracy of working memory was poorer, reaction time for a simple learning task shorter, associative learning response time shorter and accuracy poorer." Findings were the same whether children called or texted, and since texting involves very little exposure to radiation, this suggests that it's the act of phoning, not the radiation, that accounts for decreased cognitive ability. The researchers went so far as to suggest that mobile phone use also correlates with impulsivity, and that cell phone utilities like 'predictive texting' actually condition children to favor speed over accuracy. (For other research on texting, click here and here; for the impact of texting on literature, click here; for its impact on politics, click here; for its impact on language development, click here). But reports that cell phones are destroying our brains are premature. Even the Australian researchers acknowledge that it might be unwise to depend on the accounts of thirteen year olds for accurate information about how many calls or texts they receive each week. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that mobile phones cause children to respond faster to assigned tasks (ever try to get a cell-phone-enabled thirteen year old to do their homework in a hurry?) or to make their answers less accurate (they can text perfectly without looking at the keyboard; can you?).

3

249e601e-2019-04-18T13:42:57Z-00006-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry eachother.Homosexuals should be allowed to marry eachother. This shouldn't even be a debate this is a very horrible thing and they should not be allowed to marry at all.

29

cc2e0822-2019-04-18T18:45:46Z-00000-000

Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?

The United States should adopt a more relaxed immigration policy with Mexico. =The context of the words in the resolution=My Opponent contends that a relaxed immigration policy does not include providing more citizenship. This is false, because obtaining legal citizenship is a fundamental part of the current U. S. immigration policy. So arguments based on the financial negatives created when we create more impoverished citizens are valid. =Observation=My Opponent has not defined what exactly a relaxed immigration policy means, he has made vague refernces as to weakening our efforts to be rid of Illegal Immigrants, however he has never specifically explained WHAT a relaxed immigration policy means. I contended that it would create more legal immigrants, and my Opponent did not have a counter-definition, therefore in this round a "relaxed immigration policy" means that the Government would reduce the restrictions to qualify for citizenship, thus creating more legal immigrants. It is not about only Illegal Immigrants. =Rebuttal=A. "The point of relaxing or immigration policy is to use the $113 billion dollars that illegal immigrants currently cost tax payers for better purposes. " -my Opponent should've read my source before he made this claim. The costs illegal immigrants brought to the economy were not from our efforts to fight them, they were the costs of illegals using public institutions such as education, food stamps, criminal justice ect. "At present, taxpayers are unnecessarily overburdened with the task of keeping out a viable labor source at the expense of the opportunity cost of the prospective economic growth a relaxed immigration policy would yield" -my Opponent has not shown how much Immigrants help the economy. I have shown their costs. He has not given any evidence for their financial benefits, and even if he did, making illegals into citizens would reduce these benefits. I know my Opponent wanted a philisophical debate, not a source war, and I tried to give him one but there are some things (such as this) that you simply must provide evidence for in order for it to be a valid argument. "We are not talking about citizenship, or guest workers" -if we truly weren't, than you should've clarified more as to what a "more relaxed immigration policy" actually means. Regardless, I've still shown the negative effects from illegal immigrants. B. The Resolved states "should". As the negative, it is my job to show why the United States should NOT do the action called for in the resolution. Therefore my arguments about how this policy could be harmful ARE valid because they must be taken into consideration when deciding to relax the policy or not. C. "Immigration has a positive impact on the US economy. My opponent has offered no substantive evidence to the contrary. " -actually, in my rebuttal for your point A, and my C2, I provided evidence for how immigration can harm the economy. Furthermore, as the instigator it is your burden of proof to show how it helps which you have not done. "Citizenship is not at issue because a relaxed immigration policy would only allow workers to enter the United States, not necessarily obtain citizenship. " - if a relaxed immigration policy meant only allowing workers to enter the U. S. you should have specified that earlier in the debate. =Reconstruction=C1. "I would ask my opponent to turn on the news and listen to any news caster or politician describe Mexican immigration. They all oppose it vehemently, championing the cause of border security"-first of all, they are talking about illegal immigration in general, the only reason Mexico gets more attention is because the largest amount of Illegals come from Mexico. Furthermore, even if the news casters did discriminate, my Opponent has not shown how in the eyes of the law, and the current immigration policy, Meicans are discriminated against. Therefore this is invalid. "We don't afford the same level of intensity to the canadian border, for sure" -there is no need for such close scrutiny at the Candian border. The numbers speak for themselves, there are an estimated 65,000-75,000 illegal Candian immigrants in the U. S. [1], as Opposed to 6.5 million illegal Mexican Immigrants. [2]C2. "Where the cost of production is too high to remain competitive in an open market, companies go elsewhere to cut costs -and then who looses? The entire town. "-this is an excellent point, and I'm glad my Opponent brought it up. It doesn't apply for these reasons. 1. Legal citizens (which would increase with relaxed policy) are required minimum wage, so the price to produce here would still be higher. 2. When the immigrants take these jobs, the citizens who were already working these jobs suffer just as much as if the job were outsourced 3. the costs brought by illegal immigrants ($113 billion) offset these gains, presuming they exist and 4. many of the jobs taken from citizens by illegals cannot be outsourced. For example, farming jobs, or mining, or oil drilling.

15

a4241bd2-2019-04-18T16:31:04Z-00000-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

animal testing should be allowed First, I said animal testing FOR COSMETICS IS WRONG. BoP for me is not to prove all animal testing should be allowed, but some, in this case medical testing on animals. Rebuttal"if it was by medical reasons we all have different blood cells and tissue." Rats have 99% same genes as humans. [1]Chimpanzees are 96%-98% the same has humans genetically. [2] ArgumentsAnimal testing has led to more understanding for malaria, eradication of polio, development of insulin, vaccines, and other cures. [3] ConclusionAnimal testing is needed for medicine. Not all animal testing leads to abuse. http://www.nature.com...;[1]http://genome.cshlp.org...;[2]http://www.pro-test.org.uk...;[3]

48

be96fc73-2019-04-18T17:02:03Z-00005-000

Should the voting age be lowered?

Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting I will begin by extending my thanks to tylergraham95 for engaging with me in this debate. In this round, I shall present my own case as to why voting ought to be compulsory. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTION 1. Democracy - according to Encarta, is a democratic nation; a country with a government that has been freely elected by the eligible electorate. 2. Vote - according to American Heritage, is an opinion case in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. Compulsory - according to Merriam-Webster this means mandatory; obligatory Ought, according to Encarta, expresses desirability. For example, if someone says "you ought to fix the sink; it's been running for ages," that person is implying that it would be desirable to fix the sink. It may therefore be useful to define one more term: desirable, according to Merriam-Webster, denotes that something is advantageous or beneficial. Consequently, it is my burden in this round to show that compulsory voting is desirable (beneficial), whereas Con must show that it is not. PRO's CASE Now that we have a clearer understanding of the topic, I can present my arguments in support of compulsory voting. It is my thesis and main contention that compulsory voting (CV) is beneficial. If it is, then it is a desirable course of action that a democracy ought to take. Sub-point A: CV will boost turnout. "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [1] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. "The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor"even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects." [3] "Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt." [4] Sub-point C: CV corrects against "free riders." "The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing...Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold"it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout...It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour." [5] Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized--ome might say hyper-polarized--by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [6] Sub-point E: CV reduces violence. "State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society "in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives"." [3] "The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes "the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change..."An apathetic electorate"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely." [7] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [4] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS The sources above detail how beneficial CV truly is. It has the capacity to boost voter turnout consistantly, which in turn helps bridge socio-economic gaps with tangible impacts for electoral fairness. Moreover, this type of high-turnout actually enhances governmental legitimacy. CV also combats free riders, who immoral glean benefits from a system in which they do not participate, and it decreases polarization by ensuring that it is not simply the more extreme elements of the electorate who are voting. This also has the potential to reduce sharp and jarring policy shifts as different extreme elements assume power. In addendum, CV has tangible benefits in that it promotes peaceable dialogues over violent clashes. Therefore, CV is beneficial, and I must urge a PRO VOTE! Thank you! SOURCES 1 - Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 2 -Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 4 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 5 - Lever, Anabelle. Philosophy Professor-London School of Economic and Political Science, 2008, "Compulsory voting: a critical perspective," British Journal of Political Science, [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...], p. 11 6 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 7 - Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, Adjunct Prof. of Law at DePaul University "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 I apologize in advance for any formatting errors--I am being forced to use a library computer as my own laptop in undergoing repair. Thanks to the judges and to tyler. I looked forward to a great debate!

27

63a919e2-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00005-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

more gun regulation should exist here is the debate with working links http://www.debate.org... more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons, or that they will just run out and get a gun illegally. background checks are just a step removed from the idea that not everyone will just find a way to kill anyway. https://www.youtube.com...... http://thinkprogress.org...... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com...... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org...... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.

1

c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000

Should teachers get tenure?

There should not be a teacher tenure. Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn't enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of 'Reason 1': 'a' (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that 'reason 1' is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of 'Reason 2 and 6' 'b''c' What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn't this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don't have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my 'Rebuttal of 'Reason 1'. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn't have been employed and wouldn't have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn't really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. 'd' Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators' fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure's fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of 'Reason 3' A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of 'Reason 4' 'e' This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of 'Reason 5' 'f' This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of 'Reason 7' 'g' I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled 'Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis' [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn't a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school – e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro's point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for 'Reason 8' 'h' 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro's logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn't 'collective bargaining, state law and federal law' be unnecessary too because 'job protections granted through court rulings' can offer this protection already? Wouldn't she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I've refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: 'i' The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. 'It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is 'not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.' In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn't actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her – not only is it unsupportive of her argument – it is even against it. Rebuttal for 'Rebuttal for "high standard"' I have explained in my Rebuttal of 'Reason 4' how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn't just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people ('j') but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for 'Rebuttal for "high standard"' Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. 'k' This, I have already explained why it is not true in my 'Rebuttal of 'Reason 1': Pro failed to support 'reason 1' with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. 'l' If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro's assertion 'm' (incidentally, she uses the wrong 'then') is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn't given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. 'n' [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro's rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn't. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro's blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro's arguments heavily rely on 'appeal to emotion' and 'circular reasoning'. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...

38

94bd510e-2019-04-18T19:53:10Z-00005-000

Should marijuana be a medical option?

Medical Marijuana should be legal. I was looking at your profile, and i saw that you think that medical marijuana should not be legal. I disagree but i want to know why you believe that medical marijuana is unsuitable to be legal in the us. And a debate will follow. It is currently used to make peoples with diseases better, so i dont see why not.