Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 12

dee3e592-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00001-000

In Round 2 I'm going to discuss 2) The benefits of homework on the ability to perform, And 3) Why the practicality of homework should appeal to all. As for my first point of discussion, I think the famous saying goes; save the best until last. Firstly, As a precursor, I think when discussing the topic of stress, Homework is one of the minor impacts directly affecting it. My reasoning for this is that for homework students are normally given ample time to complete the assignment and furthermore, Are able to most importantly take it home, Allowing them up to at least 5 hours a night to complete such assignment but also with access to the Internet, Communication with their parents, Their peers and teachers (via email or face-to-face inside or out of school). I think perhaps a more suitable reason for the stress direct to an individual would be poor time management, Not allowing them to factor in necessary activities such as homework, But rather leaving this too late then distressing as to why there is so much to do in such little time. Secondly, As aforementioned, The practicality of homework is so simple, And that the only barrier students create for themselves is poor time management. You're able to take this homework to anyone in your social circle and they will gladly help you, Especially teachers who value students excessively that ask for help when needed. With correct habits and priorities, Children can turn homework into something that they take pride in and reap great rewards from, Not just a burden to carry until the latest possible moment. On the practicality discussion, It is also relevant that students often get lost when it comes to "revision", They don't know what to cover, What structures to produce for themselves. So, Having a teacher set a specific piece of homework can even be a burden released from the student, With them not having to worry about covering the wrong topics. Thirdly, The benefits of homework quantity on student achievement has proven time and time again that it has helped students access higher grades, With the relationship being a positive correlation, Thus one of the main reasons why it has remained in our society for so long. Homework being set from a young age greatly aids children in the preparation for examinations and tests later on in their education, With homework often incorporating essay style writing and homework also provides the ability for students to work together in their own time, Developing team building and interaction skills towards something that matters; the cultivation of themselves - the topic I will discuss next round.

dee3e592-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00004-000

Homework is a big issue these days. Homework may be useful to you in some ways, But did you know almost 60% of kids do homework and hate it, And nearly 40% of parents surveyed and admitted that homework was not any help to their child. My two main arguments will be: 1)Stress (more on that later) 2)Co-Curricular Activities are Very Important I request whoever agrees to participate in this debate do so until the end.

73bbff9c-2019-04-18T15:03:29Z-00000-000

My opponent hasn't actually made any real arguments, but has instead seems to want to have a discussion rather than a debate. The only arguments he's made are merely his opinion, with no research given or any real points laid out.Pro also drops nearly all of my case, including the points about added stress and less sleep, and straw mans the arguments I have made. He also concedes some of my arguments including time management. Let us examine his side a little closer.Pro's ResponseIn his first paragraph, Pro repeats again that "homework gives you knowledge". I've already answered this argument, which has gone ignored. Homework is not the only means of which one can obtain knowledge. There are alternatives such as after school studying of which the student can study to the extent that he or she needs to most in order to learn the material. By assigning these kids work, the school is assuming that each student needs the same amount of work as the other to properly learn things. As stated earlier, homework can be unnecessary for some because not everyone learns at the same pace. Giving assignments to students and assigning a grade to each on is hurtful to them because it doesn't necessarily ensure that they will get help. If its unnecessary, it just cuts into their time and puts a burden on them that could be easily lifted through studying at their place and not their teacher's."The opposing side suggests that we shouldnt do it because it's boring and no one wants to do it which are all precursors of a lazy attitude which is something that students should watch out for."This is a distorted version of my argument. I never claimed that it was boring or that students are just lazy, but that it is unnecessary and needless when many kids have clubs or activities outside of school that take up time. Students also need plenty of sleep to focus well in school, of which is sometimes reduced because of homework. "I would also like to point out that the research in which 93% of students using technology for homework has only proved that students dont spend their time enough outdoors...If they're going to use technology anyway, why not use it for something more productive?"What does this have to do with the topic? I never once brought up technology, nor has my opponent made any kind of connection between technology and homework being banned. I'm not sure how to respond to this as it is quite irrelevant to anything discussed. In his third paragraph, Pro states that homework "teaches life lessons" such as responsibility, time management, and organization. Again, this doesn't mean that self-studying is any different. Is there any evidence to show that homework actually increases fulfillment in these areas? If not, then this is mere speculation, and should be dismissed.My opponent goes on to state that homework is not to blame for students staying indoors. It can be a factor, yes, but I never actually made this claim. My argument was that after school assignments cut in to extracurricular activities which are often important, such as community service clubs or sports activities that help the student get better athletically. Pro claims that the majority of students go home and play on their phones or computers instead of engaging in extracurricular activities. Is this true? Not according to a national survey which found that "79% of America's middle and high school students regularly participate in activities both after school and on weekends and 57% have some kind of non-school activity nearly every day. The vast majority of the students surveyed by the nonpartisan opinion research organization Public Agenda indicate that activities ranging from sports to art and music to church programs play a crucial and positive role in their lives."[1] The earlier assumption is false.Finally, Pro states that homework comes in all forms. Of course, but how is this irrelevant? Again, these arguments and really arguments at all, but personal opinion and observation. My research has shown that homework has negative effects, and that these effects out weight any positives. Thus, the resolution is negated. Vote Con. [1] http://www.publicagenda.org...

a1df2c30-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00002-000

My defense. Economic Exchanges: 1. Criminal coercion My opponents attack here is that it is morally wrong to threaten to kill the cat, thus, the entire action is wrong. The entire action is wrong not because threatening to kill the cat is morally wrong. A person has a LEGAL right to their cat and their money. Another person has no right to force them to choose between these two LEGAL rights. You see one person holds everything; the other person is forcing them to choose. Thus, the coerced choice links into the impermissible threat. You have a legal right to your money and your cat. The other person has no legal right to your money and your cat. 2. Legal Economic Exchange Conceded. If you take this is as a sum total of the “rights” present, the shopkeeper has one legal right (to the golf clubs) and you have one legal right to your money. You are simply offering an exchange. 3. Blackmail If we take blackmail as a “sum of rights” you have two rights (your information –passive – and your money – legal.) The blackmailer shares one of these rights with you (your information – passive.) As such it links a coerced choice, the blackmailer forces you to choose whether you want your money or your information, and a permissible threat, they can release the information. I would like to point out that both the blackmailer and victim share this right of information. As such, they both have an equal share to the information. The blackmailer may be able to do what they want with the information and they can release the information. What I am arguing is that even with this shared right; the blackmailer cannot force the victim to choose between their money and the blackmailer’s share of the information. Both blackmailer and victim have a passive right to the information, something, which has not been refuted “The victim has a right to information about oneself only because other's have a duty not to interfere with the victim's right.” Under this alone, we can say blackmail should stay illegal as the blackmailer is not upholding his societal duty, to not interfere with the victim’s passive right to their information. By their threat, the blackmailer is interfering with two rights: the victim’s passive right to their own information and the victim’s legal right to their money. Thus, blackmail should stay illegal as to uphold these societal duties. Nevertheless, I shall continue. My opponent cites a shoe to show a physical example. I never argued the blackmailer cannot do what they please with the information. It is a permissible threat to release the information to the public at large. It is impermissible to demand money as it is not a legal economic exchange. As I adequately explained above there is an “in the case of blackmail there is an asymmetry of rights not found in either case 1 or 2…In the case of blackmail…the victim has two rights (their money and their secret) and the blackmailer has one right. But, the blackmailers one right is one of the things the victim has a right to (information, the secret). The blackmailer is effectively forcing the victim to choose between one of their two rights (their money or their secret) or suffer consequences.” The shopkeeper has SOLE rights to the clubs, you have SOLE rights to your money and you exchange. Blackmail would be like you buying the clubs, the shopkeeper obtaining half of them and then saying “give me the price of the clubs or I will destroy them all, including your share.” The blackmailer is not saying he will just give away his right to the information; the blackmailer is giving away the victim’s right as well. The blackmailer can simply just give the information away and be done with it; that is their right. But, once they begin coercing the victim into choosing between their right to the information and their right to the money, it is just that, coercion. An original right does matter. They do have a greater claim. Let’s take your divorce scenario. There are two parties, Party A and Party B, without prenuptial agreements. Before the marriage even began, Party A bought a house, after they married Party B moved in. Party A never created a joint ownership of the house. Party B has no legal grounds to claim they have ownership over the house, so, when divorce comes, party A still retains full ownership of the house. My situation more accurately depicts the situation. Even taking my opponent’s depiction, the blackmailer and blackmailee do not willingly come together; they have to be forced to the table by the blackmailer. The blackmailer is offering something which he does not have the right to offer. The blackmailer has the right to reveal the information, but, going along with my opponent’s analogy, the blackmailer offering the victim their information would be like Party B offering Party A the house, even though Party A, by law, still controls the house. Party B (the blackmailer) can reveal this information, if they want, but, Party A (the victim) still controls it. (1) Contractarian: My opponent cites state coercion. Laws which punish criminals are not coercion. It would be more like an exchange. The government and laws are upheld by society. If all of society were to stop following laws, what exactly could the government do? Nothing. They would be powerless to stop the will of the people. Laws are only in place because society wants them to be there. Society is exchanging their right to kill people in return for protection. There is no coercion because the state is just following what society wants. Society is telling those who do not follow society, to follow society simply because they commit crimes, which they inherently agreed to not commit by being part of society to begin with. By being part of society, you are agreeing to pay taxes to the government. Human interaction does not require coercion. Let’s take your two examples, child rearing and schooling. My opponent does not show how depriving your child of say TV is an example of coercion. In this case, the TV is completely owned by the adult. The child is merely asking permission to use what is not theirs. As for the teacher, the teacher controls the grades. They are merely allowing the student to do their work, for the teacher; in return, the teacher gives the student a grade. It’s an exchange. How is a legitimate economic exchange an example of coercion? The shopkeeper is not forcing me to buy from him. Your neighbor has no right to be on your lawn, in the first place. You have a right for him to not be on your lawn. Same for the thief, you have a legal right for him not to be in your house. As for free market capitalism, my opponent says the shopkeeper is being criminally coercive. How exactly? He simply offers an exchange: your right for his/her right. Coercion implies a threat in which one is forced to do something, getting nothing in return. Attacks Contention 1. My opponent’s objection here is that she is not justifying a statement to be true. If that is so, then, my opponent concedes her first contention as they attempt to justify the statement that “The actions behind blackmail are completely legal” therefore, it should be also. Barring that, they take entire parts of blackmail out of context. In my case, I did no such thing. My point about the kitty was by it being your money and your cat. Therefore, no one else can take it from you. Contention 2. You do not have a net benefit simply because you will never be able to find an unbiased third party. If blackmail was legal what stops one of the two parties from blackmailing the third party, then they have to make a contract, etc. If a contract is so unfairly balanced to one side, it results in one of the sides receiving no protection. How does this change blackmail? One of the two sides has no protection already. http://family.findlaw.com...

b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00001-000

I'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got."OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions." My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting." Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."and this quote: "Children’s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses."We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the "bystander" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. "In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4)." 2. Let's get to the real question, "What causes the effect?" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as "diffusion of responsibility." To clarify my source continues, "One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases."We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show "significance." Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... "Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...

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

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.

91b82bf1-2019-04-18T15:30:23Z-00003-000

That word that you used.I really dont like that word. Forced. If we are forced to vote, we might as well be back in the slave time. You said we should respect the way they use our money. According to a report by Senator Tom Coburn, in 2010 the governemnt gave the univrsity of California 3 million dollars to play video games, as part of research to, and I quote, "study how “emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace.”[1] We should respect the way the government uses our money? Here is another example. In that same report, Senator TOm Coburn reports, that the VA donates 175 Million dollars every year to maintain hundreds of buldings tha they do not use. One including a monkey house in Dayton, Ohio. [1] So WE should respect the money? The definition of democracy, is "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run." The word , MEANT, means that is is not mandatory. That is what it was SUPPOSED TO DO. That means it is optional. An obese individual is SUPPOSED to eat the right way. We always are SUPPOSED to do something. That does not mean that it is mandatory. In the end, it is all up to the individual, if he wants to eat healthy or not. In the end it is up to us if we want to partake in voting in politics, but no one can force people to vote. And you really think that forcing people to vote, will encourage people into action? If anything that will cause a rebellion. Like in Hunger Games. No I am just kidding, but not everyone likes to vote. If you force people to do something that they dont want to do, there will definetly be some rebellion. Protests in the streets. You know what you are right. Forcing people will encourage them to get into action. But not by voting. By Rebellion. And I am sure no governemnt wants that.Thank You

47b299d1-2019-04-18T19:09:12Z-00002-000

He has so cleverly avoided the fact that the internet is not the only way of communication. Other ways, that are easier for people to see,are by TV, radio, or billboards. The internet fails quite too often, and many frauds happen as well. Whilst in TV, radio, etc. there aren't as many risks to be taken. Also, not everyone has internet access. This has been proved by the US government. Currently, people have more TV access than internet, making it more efficient to use TVs instead of the internet. " my opponent has said that there are better ways to communicate such as t. v and radio, but that is not the type of communication that i was completely referring to. i was referring to people talking to each other about the business, they could use social networking websites such as facebook, myspace, twitter, and skype so that they could talk to each other and do what needs to be done. we could also use e-mail, many websites allow access to e-mail, some include: google,yahoo,aol, and others. these could also be used for businesses to work better. these methods of communication are much cheaper then using a telephone. my opponent stated that not all people have internet, but we are not talking about all of the people in the world, we talking mostly about businesses in America, does anybody know of a business in America that does not have access to the internet? for my second contention, my opponent stated "I agree with my opponent in one thing. "they need people to know about what they offer". The sad thing is though, not nearly enough people visit a company's website, since they are not too known, but they do see TV. They can also get ideas on how to have better products/services by making surveys/polls. " first, not all businesses advertise their services/product on television, most of them rely on the internet to advertise. i am sure, if you went online and searched for any businesses, you would most likely find a lot more online then you do on television. he also said that they could create polls, i agree, this would be a good idea for them, but you cant take a survey on television, and mailing them would take a lot more time, and money for the business, so, the only practical solution is to have them online, there anyone can see it, and it would be much easier and cheaper for the business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- now i would like to go onto attacking my opponents case for his first contention he said"While using the internet, businesses are at harm of receiving dangers. For example: Viruses, Scams. By using the internet, everyone is at risk of receiving a virus, businesses especially. According to Norton Internet Security, they do not guard against every single virus or scam that is out there. Same goes with Microsoft Security, and other virus protectors. They will not guard against every single item that is out there, putting the company at risk. SUBPOINT A: Businesses are also at harm to getting scammed. There have been many cases in which companies were trying to sell a certain product to supposedly big company. Since these people aren't communicating personally, there are many chances that the company that is buying the product is scamming the other. These aren't the only times in which businesses are at risk of scam. People are also at risk of getting scammed. "A British Columbia man, accused of taking $1.2 million from people who signed up for bogus online dating services, has been charged with mail fraud by U. S. prosecutors. The U. S. Attorney's Office says Barrie Turner, 65, operated more than 200 Web sites offering "Executive Dating" services and that he accepted payment from customers, but never provided legitimate matchmaking services. " Which is exactly why businesses aren't really getting advantages with internet. This was a very successful website, and other companies wanted to partner up with it, but it turned out that it was a scam, so everything being planned on was useless. SOURCE: . http://www.king5.com...; he talked about fake dating services and how it affected a man, but we are not talking about dating sites, we are taking about how the internet does more good then harm, dating services do not apply here. he said that the internet has many dangers such as viruses. but businesses will have no use for those types of websites, as i have previously stated, they use it for communication and information. they know the sites that they need,so they go to those. and even if they mistakenly went to a dangerous site, there is always a way to get the virus out of your computer. my opponent said in his second contention:"The internet is unpredictable. There may be times in which a company is ready to go live, but can't, because of an internet failure. This puts the company into danger, since an object that they were working so hard on, is not able to go live. There have also been many cases of this. One, being a small company trying to sell a specific object, and because of internet explorer failures, weren't able to sell it. Not only does the internet put a company in danger of going bankrupt, it also hurts the people. " he never brought evidence on how often failures occur, sure everyone knows that they happen, but lets be reasonable, nothing is perfect, for example my opponent brought up the point that we could use television for communication, but that fails too, he said that we could use radio, but what is they have a technical difficulty and cant broadcast? he said we could use billboards, but what if the weather knocks one down? i know that this must sound very hypothetical, but my opponent is also bringing in hypothetical on if there will be an internet failure or not. now for my conclusion: in conclusion the resolution states: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses. which means that i have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, my opponent stated the harms of viruses and that it is unpredictable, but i have already attacked those arguments. my opponent has tried to attack my case saying that there are better methods, but i have already defended that, and the other methods aren't even reliant to this debate, the resolution is only talking about the internet and nothing else. my opponent said that there are other ways to get information,but as i have already stated we aren't talking about anything else other than the internet. i have proven the benefits of the internet to businesses, and i have attacked the harms, so, that means that the benefits clearly outweigh the harms, so that is why i urge you to please vote for the affermitive in this debate thanks, -bored123456

2a6deb2-2019-04-18T19:30:42Z-00006-000

Well, that makes two of us. (However, please don't cheat in order to win...however you would do that:) ) As my opponent started this debate, I will allow him to open the discussion. Sir, whenever you are ready.

c3303005-2019-04-18T16:54:15Z-00001-000

Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire.In my closing argument I would ask the readers to "put aside" their preconceived conceptions of global warming as it has been told to us repeatedly and LOOK at the graphs that Con provided. Everyone can clearly see the same event repeating over and over again as we enter an interglacial period. A sudden rise in temperature and Co2 on each peak. Mankind was only here during the very last peak. Con argued that "This statement is false" in round 3 but why is it false? we can all see the graph for ourselves.We can see that on each peak, The left side of the peak rises sharply, and then there is a much slower decent on the right. the temperature of the Earth on the left side of each peak rises sharply, then slowly descends back down into glacial periods.Just because we are measuring a rise in Co2 and the temperature, doesn't mean that correlation is causation. Correlation is not always causation.The 3rd Graph might be based on data from the biggest super computer the world has ever known, that doesn't change the fact that they are not observations of the REAL WORLD. Someone wrote those models to support their own theory, and all of our Co2 centric models FAILED to predict real world events. That is why the IPCC can not explain the 20 year pause in warming, That is why Germany wanted to DELETE the pause in global warming from the IPCC reports."Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change"http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

bdba3f34-2019-04-18T18:30:16Z-00002-000

C1: Raises teenage unemployment70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [1] 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%. [2] C2: raises overall unemploymentas seen on source 3: The minimum wage raises unemployment drastically. "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 100,000 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. " [4]This evidence shows older raises, but still same results. The raise in the federal minimum wage raised unemployment.Conclusion:I already did this, and it had an error, and decided not to re-make it again, so I made it short. The minimum wage raises unemployment, vote pro. sources:http://online.wsj.com... [1]http://www.americanthinker.com... [2]http://www.foxbusiness.com... [3]http://www.house.gov... [4]

63356dab-2019-04-18T13:40:44Z-00003-000

Ok, first off do not bring religion into this. I am as well a Christian and the bible says if you accept Jesus into your heart he will forgive you for your sins. Jesus died so sins such as this can be forgiven. Secondly the topic is gay marriage. I am supposed to be arguing why is should be legal and you should be arguing why it should not be, not why it doesn't have to be legal. Also when I said "I don't know why it legal everywhere" I meant the whole world, because gay marriage has already been made legal in all 50 states by the supreme court. http://www.npr.org...

27983569-2019-04-18T13:47:16Z-00002-000

Argument extended

61bcba6c-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00003-000

I shall present my own arguments, and then deal with Pro's arguments. Argument 1: Animal testing is not as effective as it seemsIt is a common misconception that animal testing is the key to unlocking treasure vaults of scientific knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the FDA has noted that an overwhelming 92 per cent of all drugs that are declared safe after animal testing fail in human trials due to inefficacy or danger. Examples of drugs in this category include Vioxx, Phenactin, Selacryn and several more. Argument 2: Animal testing is not painlessMy opponent claims that scientists care about the animals, enough to prevent them from experiencing pain. I admire and respect his idealism. It is, in fact, legal under the Animal Welfare Act for animals to be cruelly hurt without pain relief . Such acts include burning, shocking, poisoning, isolating, starving, and brain-damaging these animals. It is, of course, unthinkable for us to do such a thing to a human being without recourse. Doing this to animals therefore causes us to examine the ethicality of our principles. Argument 3: Animal testing is unnecessary for educationIt is widely believed that animal testing is necessary for students to understand physical anatomy. In fact, schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford educate their medical students using cutting edge computer programs, that give them an incisive view of human and animal anatomy without necessitating the dissection of these animals. Counter Argument 1: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). While this may be true, this does not justify the use of animals for testing. It is akin to suggesting that we should breed humans for the specific purpose of drug and chemical testing. We would not, however, make such a suggestion, because we recognise that sentient beings have inalienable rights. Counter Argument 2: This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. This is true, but the same counter argument as above applies. Humans are far from endangered, why do we not use them? Counter Argument 3: An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. As mentioned in my arguments, drugs that work on animals very often fail in human clinical trials. Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute, once said that "We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans. " It is unjustifiable, therefore, to inflict pain on animals when this pain is all for nought eventually. Counter Argument 4: Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. As mentioned in Argument 1, this is a misconception. Examples of failed drugs may also be found there. Counter Argument 5: Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal. Also addressed in arguments. I have therefore proven that my opponent's reasons are weak and that there is little evidence to justify inflicting pain on animals, the way they experience pain in laboratories.

2c9ce16e-2019-04-18T17:14:44Z-00007-000

8000 characters48 hours to respondRounds:1 is for acceptance2 is opening arguments3 is clarification and rebuttal4 is closing statements The argument is over whether or not abortion should be illegal. For the sake of this debate lets leave out life of the mother. All other situations are fair game. I argue that abortion should be illegal. Let's not let this get into the practical of everything. This should remain about the principal rather than what to do in specific situations legally

6335c47e-2019-04-18T13:08:55Z-00001-000

I hope the con is able to add a closing statment, but if not I assume it is as he thinks I have won! Gay marriage is something we must give Gay people. They deserve the right to reap the government benefits of actually being married, for one thing, even if you beleive they shouldn't religiously be aloud to marry you have to agree lifelong couples should get these benefits. Gay people do exist and wether the bible and other religious texts hate them, in a modern society they do not cause harm, other than adopting children without parents and paying taxes. They are more likely to be things such as pedophiles, but that is in a large part because of low acceptance of Gay people as children, many studies have found. It's like how bullies often bully due to their own issues. It does not make it ok, but you cannot bring that against all gay people. You can't bring it against African Americans that they are more likely to be in a gang than a white person, due to them only doing that because of less oportunity (in the majority of cases) than their fellow whites.

a7a48ab8-2019-04-18T18:06:47Z-00001-000

A. M. A. Bench, Esq. for accepting this debate (I assume at least one of his given names must be Adolf in honour of his infamous relative) and for duly posting his rebuttals. Ladies and gentlemen, I didn't realise Hitler had any surviving relatives but if Herr Bench can prove he is, indeed, the Fuehrer's sole remaining descendant then, not only will he inherit the deceased dictator's castle in Bavaria but also the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Nazi gold that is currently stashed in Swiss banks. With this being the case, I would expect him to join me in arguing that the richest 10% of citizens should be exempted from tax, but in the meantime, I would like to respond to his objections as follows: The proletariat would, indeed, protest if this policy was announced prior to an election, which is exactly why the Republican American Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is so evasive about his tax policies: all he will is say is that he wants to cut them; but he won't say who will benefit (although I personally suspect the rich will benefit more than the poor). Furthermore, here in Britain, the Conservatives were elected and the first thing they did was slash public spending to pay for tax cuts for the top 5% of earners (they didn't mention this in their election campaign, of course, but that was always their plan). This shows it is possible to squeeze the poor until their pips squeak and get away with it - and it's all made possible by ensuring you have the political and financial backing of the bosses of big business and media moguls - which is easy because they are wealthy people who benefit from tax cuts for the rich. You see, democracy may exist in theory, but in practice, members the old Establishment still control the levers of power. Finally, I agree that the government shouldn't give money to big business to create jobs, if they have any money to spare, they should give it to toffs like me - I would happily use the money to employ some forelock-tugging skivvies to attend to my every whim and desire, but I"m not asking for that, all I'm asking for is to be exempted from tax, along with the other 10% most wealthy citizens. Thank you.

2e8eda76-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00001-000

When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters' minds is, "What do you eat?" The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and "Fib Ribs" to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more. Going vegetarian has never been easier, and we're here to help! From our fantastic recipes and list of favorite products and favorite vegetarian cookbooks to our free vegetarian starter kit and online shopping guide, PETA has all the information you need to adopt a healthy and humane vegetarian diet! Every year in the U.S., more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food. Raising animals on factory farms is cruel and ecologically devastating. Eating animals is bad for our health, leading directly to many diseases and illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. In response to animal welfare, health, and ecological concerns, compassionate people everywhere are adopting a vegetarian diet. For Animals Animals on factory farms are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines. Chickens have their sensitive beaks seared off with a hot blade, and male cattle and pigs are castrated without any painkillers. All farmed chickens, turkeys, and pigs spend their brief lives in dark and crowded warehouses, many of them so cramped that they can't even turn around or spread a single wing. They are mired in their own waste, and the stench of ammonia fills the air. Animals raised for food are bred and drugged to grow as large as possible as quickly as possible—many are so heavy that they become crippled under their own weight and die within inches of their water supply. Animals on factory farms do not see the sun or get a breath of fresh air until they are prodded and crammed onto trucks for a nightmarish ride to the slaughterhouse, often through weather extremes and always without food or water. Many die during transport, and others are too sick or weak to walk off the truck after they reach the slaughterhouse. The animals who survive this hellish ordeal are hung upside-down and their throats are slit, often while they're completely conscious. Many are still alive while they are skinned, hacked into pieces, or scalded in the defeathering tanks. Learn more about the factory-farming industry. By switching to a vegetarian diet, you can save more than 100 animals a year from this misery. One suggestion: If you plan to make the transition to a vegetarian diet gradually, the most important foods to cut out of your diet first are bird flesh and eggs. While many people think that "red meat" and dairy products should be the first to go, this isn't the case. By cutting bird flesh from your diet, you'll save many more animals. Because chickens are so small, the average meat-eater is responsible for the deaths of many more chickens than cows. Plus, chickens and turkeys exploited by the meat and egg industries are the most abused animals commonly used for food. For Your Health Some of the leading killers in America today, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and strokes, are directly linked to meat-based diets. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America today, and it is caused by the build-up of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products in our arteries. The only two doctors in human history who have successfully reversed heart disease have included an exclusively vegetarian diet as a part of their programs. The average vegan cholesterol level is 133 (compared to 210 for meat-eaters); there are no documented cases of heart attacks in individuals with cholesterol under 150. Other health problems tied to clogged arteries, like poor circulation and atherosclerotic strokes, can be virtually eliminated with a vegan diet. Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning. Learn more about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. For the Environment America's meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country's meat addiction is wrecking the earth. Read more about factory farming and the environment. http://goveg.com...

855bacb6-2019-04-18T19:16:17Z-00000-000

"There are 6.2 million teachers..." While I agree it WOULD have an impact on the economy, what I'm arguing is that the impact would be negative. The money to pay these teachers has to come from either the Government or parents. Either way, the economy is worse-off. My opponent has also failed to acknowledge or rebut the other negative economical impacts I presented in Round 1. "Sooner or later, the students..." I agree, but I argue that later is better than sooner. School years are for schooling and setting one's life up by getting the best grades possible. They have 60 years after high school with which to learn to manage time between tasks. "I'm sorry that I have no evidence.." That's fine, but it's a point you can't use to make your case. My opponent didn't answer to my suggestion that if SOME teachers can manage the time effectively, ALL should be able to. My opponent has not answered to my evidence that year-long schooling has no impact on student performance.

47ca8181-2019-04-18T19:26:32Z-00003-000

"Definition of force::: binding power, as of a contract (2) strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence. [Source: 1] By outlawing abortion, you do not "force" people to have back alley abortions. If you were forced to have an abortion in a back alley, that would translate into someone holding you down whilst giving you an abortion in an alley. Abortions are always a choice for people to have -- I think, though, that the choice is wrong. I want to make sure the choice is for life." But you are being forced to either A- Make a dangerous and unwise decision or B- go through extremely painful childbirth. Which one do you choose Xie? No thanks! I get to choose for you! Let me show some facts: "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (ex. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). [2] This means most make a choice to have sex, and most just plain don't want the baby. There are few victims here -- other than the fetuses. What about when the condom doesn't work? Well, when used in the proper way consistently, condoms are around 98% effective. [3] So, we can conclude that most abortions aren't due to failure of a condom." I'm sorry but that is simply, not true. 10 in every 100 women are impregnated from failure of a condom. [http://www.catholiceducation.org...] Even sergical presedures fail. Thats a very, very small chance, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. They just "dont want it" they are unfit for it. Maybe, financially, mentally or physically. -Just because there aren't many rape-related abortions, doesn't mean they don't exist.- "You are very correct. I will never have control over what people do. However, it is THEIR choice, FemaleGamer, and if they choose to make an illegal and stupid one, so be it." You don't want women to make the safest choice? The one for her health? "1 million before Roe v Wade... and 42 million a YEAR after Roe v Wade. Once again, I cannot stress enough on how it is the mother's choice to have an illegal abortion -- if she decides to do something that she knows is illegal, she must realize the consequences. You are also forgetting the one million dead babies before Roe v Wade . The women weren't the victims in all cases, the fetuses were." Right, so as long as your fetus' are protected, you don't give a crap about women or thier health. "dead babies" actually, dead lumps of unwanted molds of babies. It sounds pretty inhumane, yes it does. But 'not caring' about women is all you have expressed this argument. "Not at all! I seek to make sure fetuses and women are /equal/. All people are equal, and the fetus is no exception. Women have feelings, and so do fetuses. I want to protect them both with equality to live." I really hope "big guy up stairs" recognizes that, or its hell for you. It honestly, doesn't look like you give any care in the world to women. Or atleast to our privacy. Privacy and the right to decide are the 2 most important things in my life, why don't you trust me with them? "The teenagers, like myself (W00T! 13!), make stupid choices. At the schools here, we receive extensive education regarding sex for children. The people who have sex are most often, in my school, the ones who blow off authority and frequently get detentions for rude behavior." 1st of all... Noes you are older then me! 2nd of all.. We have those same programs and this year we even learned about protection. That does not mean pregnancies do not happen or will not. What a weird place you must live in, because the ones here are the christian girls that went to bible camp every summer and loved thier boyfriends to death. "Unwanted ≠ Kill. That poor man on the side of the highway, with no family or home, is unwanted. So kill him. That abused child is lonely and afraid. So rip out his brains. That old man, with no family left and no one's care, is unwanted. So bleed him to death. NO. [I have already assessed the following paragraph above" Actually, those people have friends, family and people who CARE. An unwanted child, is UNWANTED. Do you think it wants to live a life of pure poverty and pain? "Hello, i'm tommy, my mommy wanted to abort me but the pro-lifers wouldn't let her. So now i'm stuck in this orphanage, unwanted and alone, waiting for someone to find me. Nobody knows I will actually sit here until I am 18 and eventually live on the streets with no home, no money and no car. I will hang myself in a motel of highway 80, but nobody will know about me until I start to smell." How many unwanted children will YOU adopt?

7ce7243f-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00003-000

Okay its' about time I started this!This is a persuasive video debate I had made a forum back like 4 months ago trying to find an opponent. http://www.debate.org...) So here is the introduction video..pretty simple.Sources (if used) shall be posted in the debate round. Resolution "Recreational Marijuana Should be Legalized in the U.S" http://www.youtube.com... By the way, I meant to say "Should be legalized" Not "It shall be legalized"

1c5fe55b-2019-04-18T13:56:07Z-00000-000

Argument stands. Vote for PRO! Do I win yet?

8a21ce9-2019-04-18T14:03:04Z-00000-000

Ban

8a21ce9-2019-04-18T14:03:04Z-00004-000

Framework Pro will support that something ought to be banned if there is a net detriment to society, as the goal of a government is to better the lives of its people. Contention 1: Cost http://www.cancer.org...... http://wellness.truman.edu...... For some reason can't paste images. But I can paste the link to the image.Economic "benefits" of smoking are easily outweighed. According to the American Cancer Society, tobacco related healthcare costs and loss of productivity netted 193 billion in the US. Every pack of cigarettes, which is on average 6.36, costs society $35. Tobacco use is bad for society as a whole because non smokers are forced to pay part of the medical bills and nonsmokers also get the disease. Half of people who continue to smoke will die of smoke-related illnesses. http://www.nytimes.com...... The Federal govenment states that it costs society around 52 billion a year, but even this could be an underestimation, as "Dr. Banzhaf asserted that the Government did not take into account diseases of nonsmokers that could be attributed to smoking by others." Either way, tobacco usage has such a large economically detrimental effect that is should be banned. Even non users must foot the medical bill, as the government helps pay for medical bills of people who are unable to, and non smokers must pay the tazes to the government Contention 2: For the Users themselves As Dr. Sullivan said 'Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as intended cause death,'. http://www.cdc.gov...... Cigarettes have over 7,000 chemicals according to CDC. Hundreds of those are toxic and 70 are carcinogens. The government ought to ensure the well being of its citizens and ban smoking. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...... According to Dr Robert N Proctor, Department of History, Stanford University, cigarettes kill 6 million people a year. "Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring "decoy" or "distraction research",5 but it has also corrupted popular media, insofar as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes.7 The industry has corrupted even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees.8 Tobacco companies have bullied, corrupted or exploited countless other institutions: the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, sports organisations, fire-fighting bodies, Hollywood, the US Congress"even the US presidency and US military. President Lyndon Johnson refused to endorse the 1964 Surgeon General's report, for instance, fearing alienation of the tobacco-friendly South. Cigarette makers managed even to thwart the US Navy's efforts to go smoke-free. In 1986, the Navy had announced a goal of creating a smoke-free Navy by the year 2000; tobacco-friendly congressmen were pressured to thwart that plan, and a law was passed requiring that all ships sell cigarettes and allow smoking. The result: American submarines were not smoke-free until 2011" The smoking industry infamously proclaimed for years with false research that smoking was safe. This resulted in misinformation and millions of easily preventable deaths. This also nullifies any so called economic benefit of smoking, as most of the studies meant to portray tobacco positively are sponsored by the corporations themselves. They have a monetary incentive to keep the industry alive by killing people and getting them addicted to smoking. Tobacco is a highly addictive poison because of nicotine, which makes smokers physically reliant on smoking. Most smokers want to quit but cannot. http://www.gallup.com...... http://www.cdc.gov...... 85% of smokers have tried to quit, according to Gallup. According to Center of Disease Control this number is at 68.9 percent. The fact is that most smokers do not even want to smoke but smoking once or doing a dumb mistake forces them to smoke for the rest of their lives, inevitably killing them and harming everyone around them. Robert Proctor rebuts the freedom argument with "The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers "enjoy" smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare"so rare that the industry used to call them "enjoyers". Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that "If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week".12 American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how "fortunate for us" it was that cigarettes "are a habit they can't break"." Contention 3: Secondhand Smoke This contention is enough to win the debate. Voters, pay attention. Seconhand smoke nullifies freedom, as recipients of secondhand smoke do not choose to smoke, they simply breathe and suffer the effects of others selfishly choosing to smoke. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...... The Surgeon General Report concluded that 2.5 million American citizens died of secondhand smoke since 1964. What more do you need for an all-out ban? Con's counterplan of restricting smoking to private places will not help as smoking in private simply keeps the smoke inside the home and will cause the secondhand smoke to go straight to all the other people inside the home- such as the other family members, especially children. http://www.cdc.gov...... "It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.""Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States." (This is citing the previous Surgeon General Report) http://www.cdc.gov...... A study by David M. Homa, PhD1, Linda J. Neff, PhD1, Brian A. King, PhD1, Ralph S. Caraballo, PhD1, Rebecca E. Bunnell, PhD1, Stephen D. Babb, MPH1, Bridgette E. Garrett, PhD1, Connie S. Sosnoff, MA2, Lanqing Wang, PhD found that from 2011-12, 58 million people were exposed to secondhand smoke. "Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) from burning tobacco products causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, and coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer in adult nonsmokers (1,2). No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists (2). SHS exposure causes more than 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year, and approximately $5.6 billion annually in lost productivity " Contention 4: Environmental http://tobaccofreeca.com...... " In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U.S. environment.2 Cigarette butts are the most common toxic waste found in cleanups and the number one item found on California highways.3 4 And contrary to popular belief, they do not decompose completely.5" Cigarettes have toxic chemicals in them that threaten aquatic ecosystems when they leak out, according to( Slaughter, E., Gersberg, R., Watanabe, K., Rudolph, J., Novotny, T.E., "Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components to Marine and Freshwater Fish, Atherinops affinis and Pimephales promelas,"). http://www.mparks.org...... "cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 38% of worldwide debris". These numbers are from Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups A ban would be effective, as "Smokefree beach laws help reduce butts on beaches by 45% according to the Audubon Society". Banning will reduce the vast litter amount. http://www.lcc.edu...... "Globally, approximately 4.3 trillioncigarette butts are littered every year. Smokers in the USA account for over 250 billion cigarette butts, in the UK 200 tons of butts are discarded, and Australian smokers litter over 7 billion cigarette butts annually. In most Western countries cigarette butt litter accounts for around 50% of all litter. Every littered cigarette butt can take anywhere from two to twenty-five years to biodegrade. Dropped cigarette butts have been the cause of house and apartment fires, as well as some of the largest and most destructive forest fires. Fires caused by cigarette butts claim the lives of about 1,000 people and injure about 3,000 people each year." http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org...... "When people congregate in an airport baggage area or enter a smoking lounge where many brands are smoked, the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg (see Reference 3). Although 14 mg may not seem like a lot of mass emitted, each cigarette weighs only about 0.9 grams total, making it an extremely potent source of air pollution for its weight. As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this booklet, the 14 mg of particles emitted by each cigarette is really a large amount of particulate matter mass, causing extremely high indoor air pollutant concentrations when a cigarette is smoked at home or in a car. The chapter "Where does the smoke go?" presents calculations that you can do yourself to illustrate that a single cigarette smoked indoors is a potent source of exposure to toxic pollutants, causing concentrations indoors that are often higher than the federal air quality standards designed to protect public health in ambient air outdoors." https://www.ncdps.gov...... Cigarettes cause air pollution, which will happen even if smoked inside, as ventilation ensures it flows outside. Cigarettes are a major source of litter pollution, which costs millions to clean up. Litter costs around 11 billion to clean. If we use the cigarette litter estimate of 38%, this is 4.18 billion a year. Conclusion Tobacco use is detrimental to society as a whole by causing addiction and death even to non users. It wrecks the environment and economy. Thus, I affirm

52e4270f-2019-04-18T19:53:06Z-00004-000

Prayer and religion do not belong in the nation's public schools, K-12. I argue that prayer and religion must stay in the sector of private schools, so that our nation's children and young adults do not grow in an enviornment where they feel they MUST accept religion, instead of making a non-peer pressured, conformist choice based on fear of segregation. Public schools must be treated as grounds for building future Americans with knowledgable minds which are ever growing and actively involved in modern day actitives. I believe that prayer in public schools is a representation of religion attempting to have influence over people in order to make open minds conformed and that religion itself can do nothing to further the education of young people in our country. Supporting Christmas only in a public school is a strech: prayer, religion, classes on religion and the teaching of creationism are not relevant to graduating young adults from our public institutions.

a6e1c16c-2019-04-18T14:59:15Z-00001-000

It's alright, I understand the late response. Violent video games should absolutely be banned. Not only is the concept in some cases disturbing, certainly for someone twelve years of age or younger, this may promote violent tendencies and use of swearing. Swearing is is vulgar and shouldn't be shown to such young children.

f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00004-000

Well, this is a very complicated subject, and we needed more than just a view rounds to cover every single detail. But I'll try not to make it too long, so it won't became long and ponderous. So you could understand my point of view, the better way it's to state my background, to make it a live example, not just some doubtful story. My parents always wore the kind of person that doesn't follow the herd. Just because millions do something, doesn't mean it's good. And when it came to vaccines, they took the same principles. I'm a 18 year old boy, perfectly fine, I've taken only 3 or 4 vaccines in my entire life, and I never had any serious problem whatsoever. We are humans. We make errors. That's our nature. And when we talk about parents, it's not a exception. They had parents like us, and they were taught by their beliefs before me. In this world there's not right or wrong, there is just point of view. You say it's right to vaccinate, I say it's not, who it's really right? As Osho said "What do I mean by responsibility? You are not responsible to your parents, and you are not responsible to any God, and you are not responsible to any priest " you are responsible to your inner being. Responsibility is freedom!" So, you say that responsibility and obligations it's doing what everyone thinks it's correct, but maybe responsibility it's just freedom, doing what we believe, and not what everyone tells you to do. http://www.osho.com... I don't know if you read this book called "FREAKONOMICS", but basically the main idea that I took from it, it's that we can't make "assumptions" based on every study and report they give us. Who could you say for sure, that vaccines always had been the decisive point of decrease in eradicating diseases, when we live in a unpredicted world, were millions of variables take place, and basing studies on a case were those variables can take place and we don't even notice? "Art of Thinking Clearly" it's another interesting book. It says that the human mind suffers from Confirmation Bias. We tend to ignore other factors and only pay attention to those who proves our point. If you think about it, you may agree with me. But with this, I'm not saying that those "studies" you stated are wrong and I'm right, I'm just saying that maybe it's not fully correct, and you should take other perspective. With this sayed, I'm gonna focus on the vaccines itself. http://freakonomics.com... http://www.goodreads.com... We live in a world were power and money it's the most important thing for almost everyone, and those with then, will not abdicate and will do everything to oppress the weak and to maintain the hierarchy pyramid. If you look around, it's visible everywhere, and people more and more starts to see this. To clarify something, I just wanna say that this may not be the reality, it's just the way I see things. What makes people think that they, the ones in the top of the pyramid, that the politics, medics, economics, and the others who rules the world wants us to be happy, healthy our rich? If they wanted that, would most people live in poverty? Would most people live their lifes struggling for just a "piece" of the cake, when they make a banquet? Don't think so, and don't think that when it comes to vaccines, there are only good purposes. Well, after many research on the web to argue my point of view, I found the perfect resume of information, but if you want to search for yourself, you will find many more stuff. From the 40 reasons why you should never vaccinate infants (http://www.swaraj.org...), there are some that I would like to reinforce, like the huge side effects that most of people are unaware of, and the confirmation that big companies may test their vaccines on the population directly, makind the world a live testing lab, the lack of scientific study to determine whether vaccines have really prevented diseases, and many more.. I could be here talking and talking for no purpose, because you will only believe if you see for your self, so I give here some other sources if you want to see. There is many more, and the evidences are all over the place. https://archive.org... http://www.theosociety.org... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

7f0608-2019-04-18T11:15:57Z-00000-000

Maybe having homework does have its negatives, But that doesn't mean it needs to be completely banned. By saying that homework should be banned you're basically saying that kids should have no homework at all. Plus the purpose of school is for kids to learn and to prepare them for college, The purpose of school is not to give kids free time. I'll says that maybe homework should be lessened rather than banned completely.

7f0608-2019-04-18T11:15:57Z-00007-000

Oh "reinforce what you learned". Do you actually think I give a baboon's red, Ugly carne asada for the term "reinforce what you learned"? Homework is THE most stressful event children has ever experienced. Plus, Not getting the whole prepares children for college and life outside of school vibe here. I don't even want homework OR go to college. And even if I do have homework, I only do it at school. All I see in homework is nothing but stress, Complaints, Parental conflicts, Doing things against their will, Willy nilly, I'm trying to help kids by banning homework. Because, I hate to see children go through more adult stuff rather than kids stuff. So, They can either decrease homework to one easy homework or don't give homework at all. My parents always tell me that I don't have a choice. Like: "Hey, You're doing homework. You don't get a choice. Let's go". So, Yeah. I hate homework, I want it done, Finished, Kaput, Etc, And if you think that homework makes kids healthier, Then you're crazy. Why? Because, It gives children lack of sleep. Hence they fail, Hence they don't have time to be a kid, Hence they will be cranky all the time, And hence the reason why I rebel against homework. Knowing that, You still don't want it to be banned?

562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00003-000

To start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the "hit-maker" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a "contagion" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think "social media helps solve crimes more quickly. " [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, "Never Seconds," which exposed the state of her school"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of "Friends of Never Seconds" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to "lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. " [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported "at least one measurable business benefit. " For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands," www. briansolis. com [3]"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives," www. commonsensemedia. org [5]"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool," Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media," www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, "Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking," www. nsba. org [8] "The Case for Social Media in Schools," www. mashable. com [10] "The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy," www. jobvite. com [12]"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey," www. jobvite. com [13]"Generations 2010," www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, "Move Over Youngsters, Grandma"s on Facebook," www. newswise. com [16] "Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist," Forbes Asia Magazine [17]"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts," www. nea. gov [18] "How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education," Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] "Skype and the Embedded Librarian," Library Technology Reports [21]"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users," www. blog. edmodo. com [22]"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites," USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing," www. lexisnexis. com [24]"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force," www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation," www. usatodayeducate. com [28]"How Social Media Saved the Economy," www. technorati. com [30]"Twitter," www. topics. nytimes. com [31]"Facebook, Public Education and Equity"www. dm [33]"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research" www. guardian. co. uk [34]"Social Media and Voting",www. pewinternet. org [35]"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media," s1. intuitstatic. com

562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00001-000

'The people I hate keep bugging me !!' Block them.. 'FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc.' The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group. For example, at school we constantly try to impress our classmates in order to vote us for president of the class etc. If somebody cares about being popular he/she wants to be popular in every social group thar he/she participates in. If you're interested in being popular you have to try but you should protect your personality and not lose yourself. This is a basic principal you have to respect during your lifetime not only when you spend your time in a social network but in every social interaction. So, this is not a disadvantage enough important to outweigh social netorks' advantages. 'A FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is "look at me, I did this" "look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself" etc etc etc' It's not about bragging. SOCIAL networks has this purpose: to create a small society of people who communicate, share their interests, share photos etc. Actually, this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. This is why social networks spread Iinformation faster than any other media. Because soneone can discover something interesting and share it with other people. For instance, someone can be informed about a concert that is taking place or a new TV series that he/she would may find niteresting. ' FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction' This is a problem caused only when we don't use socal media wisely. We should be aware of this danger and protect ourselves. When we use them correctly we have the opposite results. We meet with people that we didn't know and we make new friends, we keep in touch with people who live in other cities or even abroad and since the communication is free and easy we speak more often to people we see everyday. All of these things, improce our social life and as I said in round 2, they facilitate face-to-face interactions. 'I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens' This is not a very serious disadvantage. In fact, this is not about social media. This is about your anticipation to hear from someone. You might feel the same thing when, for example, your phone is ringing and when you answer it you realize that they have called you to advertise a product or ask you to participate in a survey. Another example is when you hear the bell ringing and then, when you open the door you see a stranger who wants to sell you some things. 'I am addicted' This is a very frequent phenomenon, but yet again its cause is not social media but the way you ause them. Since you are aware of this danger, you have to put some limits and avoid spending too much time in front of the computer screen. The fact that you have realized the problem is a very positive sign. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself better: 1) Tell your parents to put a time limit to your computer that will allow you to spend a specific amount of time in front of your screen. 2) ask for help by experts 3) regulate your sleeping pattern (so that you ensure that you won't lose sleeping hours-this is a very frequent symptom of the internet addiction- and you will become more organized and self disciplined* 4) make a list of reasons why you will be happier by using the internet less and remind yourself that you can make it!* As you can see there are many ways to avoid getting addicted or to face the problem of addiction. Of course there are some serious dangers but dangers are everywhere. Social media has to offer too many important benefits for someone to claim that the dangers are enough to make them more harmful than useful. In this case the key is to learn how to get protected and not to stop using them. 'The Labour party have a fakebook page' Don't visit it. 'FACEBOOK is a social network' I suppose that you don't like fb so the solution for you is easy: DON'T MAKE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT Thank you, I'm a genius, I know:P All in all, your arguments are more personal and most of your peoblems can be solved by deleting your account if you have or not making one. Other people don't find them serious or annoying enough to stop using them: As of September 2013, 73% of online adults use social networking sites.** Furthermore, social media do not include only fb. So, if you want to prevent people from inviting you to play games you can sign up another social networking site. Finally, I can't understand something. Firstly, you are against social networks and then you say that you have an account while you find it extremely annoying.. Does not make any sense.. Sources: *http://m.wikihow.com... ** http://www.pewresearch.org...

c33557a8-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00002-000

My opponent seems to have switched to another account.For educational purposes, I negate.C1: Birthright Citizenship encourages illegal immigrationGiving instant citizenship to kids of illegals provides several incentives to migrate illegally.A. DeportationHaving a child citizen means the illegal parents are less likely to be deported (1). In addition to being an incentive, this is a violation of justice. Immgrants become less likely to be punished for breaking the law, for something as arbitrary as having a kid. If someone comes here against US laws, they should be punished and deported back to where they came from. They shouldn't be able to use a baby as a cop-out.B. AnchoringThe term "anchor baby" was coined when immigrants would come here illegally, have kids, and when those kids grew up, the parents could be in the US at any time despite being illegal. That is possible due to birthright citizenship. By having a baby in the US and it gaining citizenship, illegals become legal despite breaking laws. Also, the parents will be allowed in the US even if the immigration quota (# of immigrants allowed annually) is full. So if a Mexican wants to come here, but she can't because we've already had 90,000 Mexicans come here this year, she uses birthright citizenship as an incentive to come illegally, to bypass the quota. C. WelfareIn Darces v. Woods, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal alien parents are entitled to US welfare if they have an American citizen child (2). So they can come illegally, but still get food stamps and Medicaid? I dont think so. You have to follow the law to benefit from the law. And remember, birthright citiznship enables this by placing immigrant children within the criteria for welfare qualification.D. Empirically provenIts not just theoretics. According to the Texas Review of Law and Politics, almost 10% of all births in the US are from illegal immigrant mothers (3). Additionally, "Many of these mothers frankly admitted that the reason they entered illegally was to give birth to an American citizen."E. Illegal immigration badThe Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that illegal immigration costs Americans 113 billion dollars a year (4). If even one percent of that can be alleviated by abolishihng the Birthright incentive, thats over a billion dollars you're saving through a Con ballot.C2: Misapplication of the lawThe fourteenth amendment is Birthright Citizenship. But it was passed in 1868. This was shortly after the Emancipation Proclomation by Abraham Lincoln, "freeing" the slaves. The amendment was passed to expand the freedom of African-Americans, so they would be treated fairly as citizens (4). It was NOT passed so that illegal aliens could use it to come to America against US law. Incentivizing crime is probably not what the framers had in mind when they wrote this amendment. So we see that the Bithright Citizenship clause is being severely misapplied. It is being exploited by foreigners who want to bypass the quota and get free baby food. So because the origin of this law has no backing in regards to the current state of affairs, it would be desirable to repeal it.1. http://illegalillegals.com...2. http://law.justia.com...3. http://www.trolp.org...4. http://www.foxnews.com...5. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

ad0d038a-2019-04-18T18:30:36Z-00002-000

I comend my opponent for such a solidly researched argument. 1- The work done by Bain Capital Ventures is not discounted, and the good effect of capital ventures was specifically mentioned in my argument. The damage done by leveraged buyouts and to contrast the two processes was the purpose, not to ignore venture capitalism. 2 - the specific results of leveraged buyouts were observed, and it was noted that many companies were strong enough to survive the techniques employed in order to later thrive. That the profitibility of these companies improved is not disputed. What is disputed is whether the bottom line on the balance sheet is all that counts.4 - My opponent is correct that the comapny was not doing that well in the 1990's. However, there was a safety net in place for more than the upper management on the eventuality that the company went bankrupt. The workers themselves had fought for and funded a reasonable pension plan that would take care of them if they lost the jobs at which many had worked for decades. The restructuring and payouts that took place under Bain's management resulted in the pension funds being repurposed. In addition, the previosly sited sources indicate that the company would have been able to survive had it not been saddled with such debt.Again, it is not disputed that some mpanies can survive such a load of debt. But for thse who cannot, it is completely devestating for the company, the workforce, and the community. Rather than a stable but perhaps not wildly profitable company the community is left with an empty factory. The risk is all shouldered by the company, and the reward is all reaped by Bain Capital.When a factory closes the local economic depression that occurs has wider consequences than just the bottom line of that company. Those paychecks no longer strengthen the local economy, those unemployment checks reduce the natonal coffers, and pension bailouts forcetaxpayers to pay for something for which the management was responsible.My opponents math is a bit confusing to me. The company had a net loss of 544 million dollars the year Bain took over, and another loss of 43 million in 1993. This 586 million dollars is not balanced by a 257 million dollar profit, and certainly does not show a net profit.Any jobs the company added in the years under Bain can not be considered as net jobs produced, because they merely added to the amount of jobs lost when the plants closed. If anything, they must be added to the heartache caused by increasing the number of pink slips the company issued by 1300.5 - Stage stores filed for bankruptcy in 2000, Mitt left in 1999. It is not likely that Mitt had steered the company on a course towards greatness and in less than one year the company found itself shipwrecked and destitute. More likely is that the company was headed for the rocks and Mitt tripped and fell into the lifeboat. The companies I listed show the sordid underbelly of leveraged buyouts. That this evidence is anecdotal is true, but nevertheless undercuts the contrntion that Mitt performed a net good in all the companies that Bain took over while he was with them. If it is going to be accepted that companies that thrived after being raided did so because of Bain, then the responsibility for those who withered the vine must also be accepted. One cannot take only the credit for things that occur under one's watch and then place all blame elsewhere for the same time period.

b185997e-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00004-000

This will be a debate on when abortion should and should not be legal. My opponent can be for or against abortion, as my position could allow for contentions from both sides. *edit* My opponent must support another model for the legality of abortion.Resolution: Abortion should be legal until the fetus has brain activity (approximately 8 weeks gestation). Abortion would then be illegal after this point.There will be 4 rounds, 8000 character limit. First round acceptance only. I hope for a great debate!

3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00003-000

I will be taking pro for this argument, I think wer should abolish pennies, con takes the point of view as if we shouldn't.

3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00002-000

Poll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. "These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America." said Weller. "Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned." The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. "Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want," said Weller. "It's just common cents." Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;

2403550a-2019-04-18T14:02:10Z-00006-000

I believe school uniforms should be enforced upon all schools. They will help students focus more on school, they will lower crime and bullying, they will give a sense of unity to the school, they save class time, they can save money, increase attendance and can improve punctuality, save money for parents, and help students get to know each other better based on their personality more than their appearance.

691333cd-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00001-000

I'm sorry I forgot to cite my sources, but since I'm "new" to this debate thing, I'm not very used to it. However these are the sources I used in round 2:http://listverse.com...http://www.balancedpolitics.org...-http://www.economist.com...http://www.motherjones.com...A principal would most likely not have not be able to defeat the shooter and most likely kill himself and cause others to be injured. Only 1.6 percent of mass shootings end in a successful intervention by a bystander and only 0.5% of Americans successfully defend themselves from gun violence each year. Statistically speaking, there is a 98.4-99.5 percent chance that he would get killed or worse, injured and brain dead. The argument that more guns= less violence is false, the 5 most dangerous states in America have less gun control than states that have more gun control. While citizens should be able to have guns they NEED to be controlled. The Unites States murder rate and crime rate have been decreasing because of factors, unrelated to gun rights. There are two articles here about it:http://usnews.nbcnews.com...http://www.bbc.co.uk...States have also been enforcing more gun control and crime is dropping. A ban on semi-automatic and auto-matic guns in from 1994-2004 helped curb crime and murder in the U.S. until it expired in 2004. The ban on semi-automatic weapons is proof that gun control actually works and crime is easily controlled by gun control. IT's okay for citizens to have guns, but they need to be controlled. With power comes responsiblity, that means background checks and banning dangerous military weapons like semi-automatic weapons so that is doesn't fall into the wrong hands. More guns actually mean more murders and crime according to a study done by Micheal Siegel in Boston College the more guns people have the more crime that they will commit. "With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. A onestandard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent."This also happened to bethe largest gun study EVER DONE. http://thinkprogress.org...More guns= less crime argument makes no sense. Worse is the fact that the U.S. has the higher homicide rates and higesr gun ownership.

691333cd-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00003-000

However, the are some flaws in his argument: 1. A year and a half a go, our country was shaken when they found out about the Sandyhook Elementary School Shooting where 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members. Had the principal had a gun he could have faced the gunner and saved innocent children who hadn't even gotten all their teeth in yet. Flaws: However, had a teacher had a gun, it could have possibly caused more deaths and having guns in school might cause a teacher to use the gun or a student and actually increase school shootings. Furthermore, only 1.6 percent of mass shootings ended in a civilian using a gun and successfully intervening. Furthermore, many in many situations a civilian successfully intervened and got killed, hurt or even died. 2. Many criticize that people couldn't do these crimes if they don't have the gun in the first place. But no, guns are stolen in cases as this and many others. Another flaw, 80 % of mass shooters obtain the gun legally. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U. S. found: " 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" " 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" " 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" Another flaw: Since it only was conducted in 11 state prisons it is not the whole United States, also they only went to only STATE prisons, the statistics do not represent the ENTIRE U. S. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U. S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. Flaw: Only 0.5% of people in all of the U. S successfully defend themselves from gun violence every year. However, I think the U. S. needs more gun control: 1. About 30,000 people die every year from gun homicides. 2. In 2015, more people will die of gun violence than automobile accidents. 3. Most violent crimes are committed with guns so gun control, would help curb crime 4. Most guns uses in Homicide or any kind or crime are legally obtained 5. Gun Control would help curb suicide rates. 6. Most Americans support gun control 7. Countries with more guns have higher Homicide rates, America had about 310 million guns and had a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people. United kingdom has a homicide rate of 1.0 per 100,00 people and has 4 million guns and tougher gun laws, and the same can be comparable to countries with less guns and more gun control. 8. 70 percent of homicides are with a gun 9, A gun is more likely to bystanders than any other weapon.

5fecb7fe-2019-04-18T18:17:19Z-00003-000

Professional sport is no place for younger competitors. They are neither physically or mentally ready to enter a world of hard training and competition. Allowing under 18's to compete in professional sport would restrict some children from having a healthy. normal childhood. Also, what kind of image will this be setting. This would mean that children would be competing in games against adults. It would not only be unfair on the young competitors but also would be hard to take seriously. I believe that under 18's should not be able to compete in professional sport due to they are not mature enough, mentally and physically. It takes away their childhood and decreases the amount of authenticity or seriousness of professional competition.

dee26282-2019-04-18T11:50:19Z-00004-000

I have already addressed the issue of the 14th amendment. It clearly states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." What this means is the government, specifically the senate, can choose who becomes a citizen based off of various facets of the case, such as economic costs, legal issues, and so forth. It does not say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens." The founders purposely added "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to allow the government to have some control over things such as birthright citizenship. Sources: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.breitbart.com...

dee26282-2019-04-18T11:50:19Z-00005-000

What about the 14th Amendment though? Those who are born here should be allowed to stay here. It is cruel to deport them. Create a pathway to citizenship.

dee26282-2019-04-18T11:50:19Z-00008-000

That said, I'll proceed with my opening statements and arguments. I am against birthright citizenship in general(there are a few, rare cases where I may consider it as a possibility, but for the vast majority of cases it is completely unacceptable and a disgrace to this country). Birthright citizenship is a magnet for illegal immigrants. They come over to the USA when they're almost ready to have a child, and when the child is born, they've got a citizen to anchor them in the country. Even though the parents are not citizens, the child is, which creates an anchor for the illegal immigrant parents to stay. Birthright citizenship also puts a burden on the taxpayers, forcing them to pay the costs for the children to be born and, in most cases, raised, as the parents of the child are illegal immigrants and are, thus, the government is forced to comply with the needs of and supply for the child. These costs amount to a few billion dollars - all supplied by the taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the needs of the child, though, but they also have to pay for the well-being of the illegal immigrant parents. In total, illegal immigration costs $135 billion dollars - again, all supplied by the taxpayers. Of the total amount of illegal immigrants coming into the US per year, those with "anchor babies" that provide for birthright citizenship constitute about 10% of the entire flow, meaning they cost about 13.5 billion dollars a year. Believe me, this is unacceptable. On top of this, the repeal of birthright citizenship does not violate the constitution in any way. The constitution clearly conveys this, by stating that the government has the power to choose whom is in the jurisdiction of the United States and is, therefore, eligible to become a citizen. With this I conclude my opening statements and arguments. Sources: . http://www.nationalreview.com... . https://fairus.org... . http://www.nationalreview.com... . http://www.breitbart.com...

8b8b0f0b-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00001-000

Look up 'lists of sports'. Its on there

8b8b0f0b-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00005-000

I believe cheerleading IS a sport because you have to run, train, and condition just like any other sport. It's hard work to be a cheerleader.

7916b405-2019-04-18T18:52:54Z-00004-000

In this opening round I will answer my opponent's analysis about smoking. Under each point I will show why the point is actually a point for me. Smoker's Health Smoking is the number one cause of premature mortality in the United States and the world[1]. One or two chemicals which in isolation, or tablet form, might improve brain function when someone has certain mental illnesses are indeed present in cigarettes. But then again, so are sixty-nine cancer-causing chemicals[1]. The fact of the matter is smoking is deadly, not health-beneficial. That's why there are warnings on cigarette packets. People who eat grapefruit regularly are far less likely to be admitted to hospital than those who smoke regularly. Non-smoker's Health I think we all know second-hand smoke is harmful only in closed environments. The trouble is that closed environments is where smokers choose to smoke - bars, workplaces, homes and so on. This leads to about 15,000 kids in the United States going to hospital every year for respiratory tract infections alone[1]. It's probably because even according to the tobacco companies, smoke breathed out is more harmful than what a smoker breathes in[2]. If you walk past a smoker at Wal-Mart, you may not immediately drop dead, but a little poison will enter your bloodstream. Freedom of Choice I get really annoyed when this argument is run by drug supporters. Smoking is addictive. Therefore smoking removes choice. That's why it is so hard to quit. If we want to maximize freedom of choice, what we should do is ban things that remove people's freedom of choice. Therefore we should ban addictive substances. Therefore we should ban smoking. In the US, none of those smoker's warnings actually tell smokers that what they are doing is addictive. However, freedom of choice is not absolute. We do ban things when there is a significant potential harm to individuals and/or society at large. That's why we ban driving in unsafe cars. It's also why we should ban cigarettes - we don't want people harming their own or each others health. Prohibition There is a significant difference between banning alcohol and banning cigarettes. That is simple. It is possible to casually drink alcohol on a regular basis and suffer no ill health effects. That is not possible with cigarettes. Prohibition didn't work because there was no perception of public risk around alcohol. With cigarettes, however, there is a very strong perception of public risk. Even the tobacco companies own research suggests that with a partial (public places) ban "Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average. [2]" In my own country, the drop has in fact not been a mere 15%, but 67%[3]. There is no similar evidence that banning has any effect on alcohol consumption. There is nothing attractive about illegal things. Unless you think murder is attractive. I do admit that it won't stop all smokers from smoking. It will stop many, but you can't prevent a black market. What it will do is stop potential smokers from starting. Black market smoking would be done secretly, and therefore young children would not be exposed to cigarettes. Most jurisdictions report a 90% compliance rate[2]. That's worth fighting for. Model So as the affirmative team, this is my proposition. I would ban all tobacco production, sale and possession in the same way that marijuana is presently restricted, by 2025. That would give smokers some time to quit. Production would be illegal earlier, by 2020, to make sure that large surplus stocks are not left lying around for the mafia to steal (this was one of the major problems with prohibition). This would of course be accompanied by large-scale advertising campaigns on the dangers of smoking. So why do this? We, as a society, have a moral obligation to each other. That's why we ban suicide. It is the government's role to create disincentives for socially undesirable behavior. Is a health-care system that can barely cope socially desirable? No! Is the ready sale of trillions of sticks consisting largely of rat poison for public consumption socially desirable? No! Is it socially desirable that ordinary citizens are slaves to globs of nicotine-infused tar? No! It is time that our politicians took a stand. It is time that we recognised the tobacco industry for what it is. It is time that we banned smoking. In 1993, the United States Supreme Court ruled that second-hand smoke was a cruel and unusual punishment, and thus in violation of the eighth amendment[2]. They made the right choice. Won't you? Sources 1 - . http://www.smoking-facts.net... 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...

7916b405-2019-04-18T18:52:54Z-00000-000

Smoker's Health OK, let's get one thing straight. You take cyanide, you die. The chemicals I listed last round don't cause diseases at all, which is why my opponent's source is so eloquently able to claim that smoking rarely is the sole cause of a disease. Rather they are poisons. That is, by the way, a prime example of your sources taking facts way out of context - cigarettes are more deadly than just disease-causing. I'm not saying smoking causes people to die more frequently. Smoking makes you die younger. Cigarettes wear down your immune system until your body collapses. Sure, my opponent is right to say that we don't know how old some smoker would have become if they did not smoke. But we can almost guarantee that they'll be healthier, and not have dozens of carcinogens waltzing around their bloodstream. Finally, my statistic is correct - 14% of people die from cancer, and 30% of cancer patients are smokers. So we can logically conclude that smokers are way over-represented in cancer statistics. My source makes the first fact clear enough, and yours covers the second.You make the same error a second time - the reason why the number of smoker's deaths is low is because there aren't that many smokers. Non-smoker's Health First, I'm sorry that I cited my third source. I should have cited my fourth. The numbers are on there. My opponent says that the parents should suffer the consequences for their actions. But what about the children who did not choose to smoke? Who are the ones who will suffer these ill effects for the rest of their lives, all because of a choice they did not make? If my opponent concedes that this is a significant social harm to these children, he should admit that we should prevent parents from smoking. But it's not just parents. I should not be forced by my employer to expose myself to a toxic mix 6000 harmful chemicals. Not everyone can leave their job. There might just not be enough work to go around. Finally, I know that *they* died from second-hand smoke exposure because that's what the statisticians said. They could be wrong, perhaps. All of the studies that show harmful benefits of smoking could be wrong in theory. But the chances of any individual study being wrong is fairly slim. That's what the process of peer review is out to ensure. Freedom of Choice First, my opponent agrees that freedom of choice has limits. Perhaps they are controversial. But controversy is not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean we should just say yes. There is controversy around euthanasia, for instance, but it is (in most jurisdictions) outlawed anyway. Second, slave=person without freedom of choice, cigarette=thing that creates people without freedom of choice (because of its addictive nature). And third, no you cannot sell yourself into slavery. It's outlawed internationally. Even if you've really thought about it for a very long time. Prohibition "we can't make everything that can kill us illegal" but we can do so when there is a significant social harm. Like in the case of marijuana. Youth and Cigarettes Here my opponent appeals to authority over the common youth statement - bad stuff is good. I do not find that persuasive for reasons I have outlined earlier. But even if it were true that youth adore murderers and pedophiles, I want to prevent people being seen smoking at their age. At the very least, if it is underground, it is out of sight (to keep away from the prying cops). Again, I am sure 100% compliance is impossible. Many will keep doing it. But the purpose of my model is not to eradicate smoking but to relieve pressure on our public health system by reducing smoking among youth. Which is why crack is far more rarely seen in school parking lots than cigarettes. It is there, no doubt. But it is rare. Model OK, so cigarettes are sometimes a placebo, and ... what? If it is a relaxant for them, then great. That's no reason not to ban it. I'm sorry, I just don't comprehend this point. Maybe they'll make replica cigarettes. OK, again, that's cool. I don't mind. If there is no social harm, then don't ban it. If there is a significant social harm, then ban it. This isn't a weakness in my model at all. Summary This debate is about whether we should ban people from destroying themselves, their family, their coworkers, and even random people whom they don't know. I for one am proud to say that I am against cigarettes. Let's stand up for society! Let's liberate a people oppressed! Too long have we been in the dark abyss of smoker's rights. Smoker's rights is nothing more than millions of death certificates, not only of smokers, but of the innocent also. This is no prohibition. This is an affirmation of freedom of choice. Smoking cigarettes should be illegal. Please vote PRO ...and make it happen!

d2c3cc86-2019-04-18T18:23:10Z-00006-000

I created this topic simply to get use to the system of debates on here. .. so any takers?

3b3189a0-2019-04-18T11:31:50Z-00004-000

what kind of smoking are we talking about .... cigarettes i'm assuming yes it does cause cancer but not for a long period of time and most people who smoke they say it helps them de-stress if that's the way they choose to live their life so be it if this is the case we should ban paper because if you get a papercut and it gets infected you can die .... don't want lung cancer ? don't smoke ....

ceb90675-2019-04-18T18:47:11Z-00007-000

Before we begin, I would like to request both parties to keep an open mind. This debate is also NOT over gay adoptions. Therefore, all arguments about SSA go out the window and are invalid. Good luck to my opponent.

2b296c2b-2019-04-18T15:35:32Z-00002-000

Extend arguments

826ba688-2019-04-18T16:43:45Z-00005-000

So you believe that all of the garbage we are pumping into the environment has very little to do with global warming? I was looking for a different sort of debate response, but I will take whatever route you choose. Certain molecules exhibit certain behaviors that lead to certain outcomes. I do not feel like writing some big scientific explanation to you because you don't seem like the science type. Yes, there are greedy people out there who use global warming to make money. Some humans will try to make a dollar without even the slightest thought of the morality of their actions. So where do you want to take this debate?

be50aaf1-2019-04-18T13:34:22Z-00005-000

STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A BEAUTIFUL THING. WITHOUT IT, KIDS WOULD BECOME DUMB, AND DUMB PEOPLE ARE LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE THINGS THAT HARM THE EARTH AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO PRACTICE THESE THINGS, LIKE LITTERING. WITHOUT STANDARDIZED TESTING, DUMBNESS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH WHICH IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE. THUS DESTROYING STANDARDIZED TESTING DESTROYS THE UNIVERSE!!!THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME!!! BACK TO CON! >:P

dddbe3de-2019-04-18T17:24:51Z-00004-000

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and will argue against the legalization of prostitution. I wait for his side of the debate.

84bee0b1-2019-04-18T13:28:44Z-00000-000

Sorry if I rushed your debate. Now with your final statement I agree with some of your points. Now lets see what points I agree on. Your first point about everyone not getting a raise I disagree with. I made many examples about why you would raise a welders wage because jobs harder and they would be getting payed the same as a McDonald's work if it went to 15 dollars per hour. This is the wage welders gets when welding is harder more physical then working at McDonalds. So it just logical in order to keep workers you need to raise the wage. I agree that a raise in minimum wage will increase more robots production. I personally believe that this is good for business but not for the low paying workers excluding labor worker. It will block out a lot of the low paying jobs. But still the minimum wage raise will affect the other wages. It will make a large employed phenomena but it will be in the long run. Faster but not overnight. I personally believe if minimum wage doesn't raise maybe in 10-20 years but if minimum wage raises then maybe in 5-10. My personal idea though. Hyperinflation. A word that represent big works in economy or a feared word. Now will minimum wage affect hyperinflation. yes. But I believe that it's not minimum wage causing it. This corrupt government made it. Minimum wage helps everybody even the rich. This country is working for the rich not the middle class. I'll tell you the rich will make these lies. They are the one getting rich and protect by the police. What do we get being in middle class. Nothing. We are living where the rich is getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This will help the middle class and lower. We are working 48 hours a week and can only support food, water, and bills. We need more money to live a life. Rich will stay rich. They just would make a little less money. They will get a better products. Better games. Better food.

84bee0b1-2019-04-18T13:28:44Z-00004-000

Thank you for your speech. I look forward to a good and informative debate. To begin, I do not think my opponent understands minimum wage based on his statement: "minimum wage pays 10.10 to pizza guy. If McDonald's doesn't raise it price to the manager of McDonald's which is about 10.00 in Illinois to 13-16 dollars then no one will take the job. So in reality everyone gets a raise." To raise the minimum wage you legislate a law where EVERY COMPANY must raise the wages of all of its workers to that wage or above. If you change the minimum wage to $10.10 no company can pay a worker less than $10.10. On a completely unrelated note, the American dream is meant to be for Americans. People immigrating from mexico to america do not deserve anything, and especially should not get to decide on our wages. I will not actually explain what happens when you raise the minimum wage. If you raise the lowest amount a person can get paid, the company must pay them more. To compensate for this, the company may raise the prices of its products. Due to this, the only product of a raise of minimum wage is inflation, it does not actually benefit anyone. But raising the minimum wage actually harms people. Companies cannot afford to pay the workers more, will replace them with machines. Then the workers are unemployed. Once they are unemployed they claim more unemployment benefits. Coupled with the fact that the government cannot actually replace their workers so pays them more, the government will lose money. The costs of raising the minimum wage are high and it provides no benefits. This is why the minimum wage must not be raised.

dd985bd6-2019-04-18T17:07:09Z-00005-000

Rebuttals: You stated, “With proper sex education, these infections could be safely prevented, or at least the rate will be significantly reduced, resulting in better sexual health.” This is a kind of an assumption not supported by any evidence. You just presented statistics on young people involved in sexual intercourse, but never the relationship between sex education to safe sex. Furthermore, in your second point as stated “76.7% of teens did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex. In addition, more than half a million unplanned pregnancies occur to teens each year… What we can conclude is that we can't control whether teenagers have sex, but we can control whether they are safe about it and know how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies.” How can you say that we can control them in having safe sex in preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies? This is another form of an assumption. Where is the study that shows the we can control as such? All you presented were just an fallacious assumption, or if not, claims not supported by evidence. PointsThere are many different groups across the United States advocating for abstinence-only sex education in the schools. They include Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International. These and other proponents of abstinence-only education argue primarily that sex before marriage is inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs.1 Many such groups emphasize that condoms are not fool-proof in preventing pregnancy or STIs, and that sexual activity outside marriage can result in “serious, debilitating, and sometimes, deadly consequences.”2 In addition, many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual activity among young people.63 These advocates credit the decrease in teenage pregnancy largely to the advancement of the abstinence-only message.3 An article on the Concerned Women for America web site states that “[t]his is not simply an issue of morality, but a matter of public health. The problems that have become so entrenched in our country, such as AIDS, illegitimate births, poverty, increasing crime and the breakdown of the nuclear family, can all be attributed to the debilitating effects of a public policy that condones sex without love or responsibility. … As research clearly indicates, America is not suffering from a lack of knowledge about sex, but an absence of values.”4 Abstinence-only proponents point to studies concluding that the abstinence-only education message has played a central role in the decline of adolescent sexual activity, and related negative health outcomes, over the last decade. One study reports that “…abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.”5Sources: [1] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001. [2] Ibid. [3] Abstinence Clearinghouse. Data confirms that the abstinence message, not condoms, is responsible for the reduction in births to teens [Internet]. May 17, 1998. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=168. Accessed October 16, 2001. [4] Concerned Women for America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait [Internet]. July 1998. Available at: www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml. Accessed October 16, 2001[5] Jones JM, Toffler W, Mohn JK, et al. The declines in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the 1990s: What factors are responsible? A special report commissioned by The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils [Internet]. January 7, 1999. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=224. Accessed October 16, 2001.

7e6be05b-2019-04-18T18:28:25Z-00004-000

The obvious dark side of prostitution is the underground sex-trade. Let’s start by differentiating between myth and fact. Prostitution is often presented as an “American coming of age” right of passage. The urban legend of the doting hooker, who takes gives the 15 year old high school virgin his first taste of a real woman, has been glorified on TV and shown in a comical, harmless light. Truthfully, between 12 to 57 percent of streetwalking women are HIV positive. The AIDS epidemic is not only common amongst prostitutes, the virus is taking steroids and doing push-ups while your kids are being indoctrinated into a sexually over-exposed culture. Another myth of prostitution is the idea that prostitutes are sex-crazed nymphos who love a good time. According to the department of Justice, of the 1,229 reported task-force incidents between 2007 and 2008, 83% of the prostitutes where forced into sexual slavery. Nothing more needs to be said on this subject. Yet another common myth is, that legalized prostitution is victimless. The UNDOC listed the Netherlands as the primary destination for underground sex trade slaves. The sex-slave trade is operated by organized crime, which victimizes anywhere between 2000 to 7000 women and children every year. In 2008, the worst case of sex slavery was made public in the Netherlands, when a gang of 6 pimps was arrested for violently forcing 100+ women to perform sex acts. Conclusion: Legalizing does not make it better, it gives criminal organizations an endless supply of victims. Prostitution harms the family, the society, the customer and the vendor. The only benefit is a brief moment of gratification, most always followed by severe consequences. References: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...... http://en.wikipedia.org...

9f0d4cb6-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00004-000

First of all, my opponent has not stated any sources. Second of all, who thinks that gay marriage is right?? IT is a SIN to be gay in many religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. This quote is from vendidad, the ancient texts of Zoroastrianism.. "The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas." These religions think that is is in fact, a sin, like the way People are not supposed to be gay. The way of life is not to be gay- it is to be straight- man with woman, not man with man. Nothing is produced between them. You can't make babies, so technically you are no longer performing the act for the right reasons. So, infertile couples and post-menopausal women should lose their rights and responsibilities too--they aren't procreating, so their marriages are useless. And even with gay marriage- Only a few states allow it. Until 2004, same-sex couples couldn't wed anywhere in the country. Now, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and most recently New Hampshire. It was illegal UNTIL 2004. Less than 6 years ago. So, before, the people must have thought it was wrong to have gay marriage, until now. (source is stateline.org) Gay marriage threatens the marital institution: Oh yeah it does. So does the high divorce rate among the legally-allowed-to-marry heterosexuals. By allowing gays to marry, it takes away from the number of people who marry with little attraction to the other person. Even some people who divorced from marriages turned to being queer. If we allow gay marriage, then homosexuality will be taught in schools. Yes, the schools. Since it will be allowed it will have to be taught in schools. do we want our children to know about gays? they themselves may become gay, and do we want that? (Kansan.com) for these reasons, opp has won this deb

2093606e-2019-04-18T17:30:38Z-00006-000

We are not debating whether Hockey or Basketball are American or not. Even if a sport is not American that does not mean it is worse. Also, even if more AMERICANS prefer to watch Basketball, that does not account for nations with a significant percentage of population that prefers Hockey (Canada). Now which of these sports take more athletic ability? That answer would clearly be Hockey. In Hockey every athlete is required to have amazing flexibility, balance, strength, cardio, and hand-eye co-ordination. In Basketball athletes are only required to run up and down a court throwing a ball.

2093606e-2019-04-18T17:30:38Z-00008-000

Considering that Basketball is a sport where you twist your ankle and are unable to play for 3 weeks; where as that Hockey can turn into a free-for-all brawl in a moments notice. A sport for wimps is no sport at all which is to say Basketball is far from being a better sport than hockey.

3a7b2be1-2019-04-18T19:54:46Z-00001-000

My opponent states that officers of the law should be held to the same standard of judicial review that all citizens are subjected to. In part I would agree but my opponent uses slanted biased arguments to make a point that some officers have not been made culpable for their actions. Law enforcement is one of the key areas in public service were ethics and morality are constantly judged and weighed. In many private professions a persons non felony record is not the concern of public or private employers. Officers of the law should be scrutinized to assure the community that they are themselves upholding the law of the land. But they should be treated fairly, None of the offense incorrectly dictated and of dubious origin are offenses that warrant life imprisonment as the author leaves to innuendo in his last statement. Furthermore both cases sited by my opponent entail felony convictions for there actions. I challenge my opponent to site and reference these infractions and any disciplinary results thereof. If anything law enforcement is held to a higher standard than an average citizen.

71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00005-000

I believe global warming is not caused by humans.

ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00002-000

If prostitution was legal it would allow them to do checks on prostitutes and make sure they dont have any sexual diseases that can be passed on. They should have check ups at the doctors to make sure they are healthy and if they are not they shouldnt be aloud in the profession. Prostitutes wouldnt have to be victims if it was legalized because it wouldnt be so underground and secret and they could build hotels for prostitution services and if the prostitutes had any issues they would just call the main desk and they would notify police right away and stop the crime. GOLFWANG OFWGKTA

aca376a0-2019-04-18T13:45:45Z-00002-000

I will begin my first argument by discussing the negative effects of cannabis on its users. With this being said, I wish the best of luck to my opponent and am glad to finally be doing this debate. The Dangers of Marijuana on Its Users Marijuana has a variety harmful effects on its users. In this part of my argument, I will discuss the short- and long-term effects of using this drug. Some of the short-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, the "high" feeling, altered senses (e. g. seeing brighter colors), an altered sense of time, mood-swings, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and solving problems, and impaired memory.1 Also, let it be known that hallucinations and anxiety/panic attacks can occur with short-term usage of marijuana if the dosage is high enough.2 Some of the long-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, suppression of the immune system, reduction of male sex hormones, destruction of lung fibers and permanent brain damage, reduced sexual capacity, and severe mood-swings.3 Clearly marijuana is too dangerous of a drug to be legalized for recreational purposes. Its effects can be long-lasting and severe. The Dangers of Marijuana on Others According to researchers at Columbia University, marijuana has contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010.4 In addition to this, according to Russia Today, marijuana-related deaths, school suspensions, traffic incidents, and poisonings have spiked in Colorado (a state which legalized the drug back in 2012).5 Once again, we clearly should not legalized cannabis. It has been shown that legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes causes a spike in crime, traffic incidents, school suspensions, and more. Conclusion I conclude in this first argument that marijuana is too dangerous for recreational purposes for two main reasons: it is harmful to its users and to others. Sources 1. "Marijuana. " DrugFacts:. N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016. 2. "Short and Long Term Effects. " Of Marijuana. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Feb. 2016. 3. "Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. " Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 4. Schmitz, Matt, Cars. com Chris Woodyard, and Usa Today. "Marijuana Playing Larger Role in Fatal Crashes. " USA Today. Gannett, 09 June 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 5. "Marijuana-related Deaths, Suspensions & Problems Spike in Colorado – Report. " RT International. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.

fbe0f0fc-2019-04-18T14:37:21Z-00005-000

We are now in the refutations period. Reagan's growth vs. Obama's growthMy opponent argues that one of the main reasons the economy go so better was because of the Federal Reserve's policy and high government spending:"Many say the growth was due to supply side economics; however, I’m going to prove it was primarily due to the actions of the Federal Reserve and high government spending during the Reagan administrations. I will also show why growth under Obama is due to similar purposes, but why he is a more fiscally responsible president. "He shows Fed interest rates and explains how that led to a defeat of inflation. Finally, the Fed dropped rates after two years and the unemployment rate started to head down. There's a problem that my opponent misses, which is that this IS the monetary policy of Reaganomics, as I explained before, but will explain again:"Reaganomics consisted of four key elements to reverse the high-inflation, slow-growth economic record of the 1970s: (1) a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation; (2) a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut enacted (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency; (3) a promise to balance the budget through domestic spending restraint; and (4) an agenda to roll back government regulation. " [1]Since restrictive monetary policy is part of Reaganomics and that is what the Fed did, the credit must be given to Ronald Reagan. It is important to remember the unprecedented amount of defense Reagan gave politically to the Federal Reserve and Chairman Paul Volcker:"What Reagan provided was political protection. The Fed's previous failures to stifle inflation reflected its unwillingness to maintain tight-money policies long enough to purge inflationary psychology. Successive presidents preferred a different approach: the wage-price policies built on the pleasing (but unrealistic) premise that these could quell inflation without jeopardizing full employment. Reagan rejected this futile path. As the gruesome social costs of Volcker's policies mounted -- the monthly unemployment rate would ultimately rise to a post-World War II high of 10.8 percent -- Reagan's approval ratings plunged. In May of 1981, they were 68 percent; by January 1983, 35 percent. " [2]Reagan's policy required restraint in domestic spending. That was upheld. Annual percentage increase in billions for the government domestically only grew by 1 percent during the Reagan years. This is much lower than the domestic government growth of 3.5 percent during the Jimmy Carter years. [1]As a percentage of GDP, federal outlways were lower when Reagan left office from he entered it. In 1981, federal outlays were 22.2 percent of GDP and in 1989 they were 21.2 percent of GDP. We have now concluded that spending was limited during the Reagan years, but mainly on the domestic side as Reaganomics argues. Naturally defense spending increases during a time of war. [3]My opponent argues that Reagan lowered taxes, but that he also raised taxes as well. The Reagan years are known for the era of supply-side economics when taxes collapsed to help the economy. This is true because as a whole, economists recognize that taxes were much lower when Reagan left office from when he entered it. The whole point of supply-side economics is to lower tax rates while cutting deductions in order for a more transparent tax system. It's also important to keep in mind that Reagan's important 1981 tax bill was put into effect over years and far outweighs the 1986 increase:"Critics charge that the tax cuts caused higher deficits, but they misread the evidence. The Reagan tax cut, though approved in 1981, was phased in over several years. As a result, bracket creep (indexing was not implemented until 1985) and payroll tax increases completely swamped Reagan's 1.25 percent tax cut in 1981 and effectively canceled out the portion of the tax cut which went into effect in 1982. The economy received an unambiguous tax cut only as of January 1983. Thereafter, personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation). " [4]This was followed by Reagan's 1986 tax cut, which brought the top rate down from 50% to 28%. When he entered office the top rate as 70%. Finally it is important to remember that the deficit was expected to continue to decline when Reagan left office. The deficit, at $141 billion when Reagan left office, was on track to decline every year in CBO projections. In 1990 it would be $110 billion. What happened was that George H. W. Bush raised taxes and ruined the fiscal situation. [1]My opponent looks to stop market growth, but this is flawed. Stock market growth really doesn't accurately reflect the economy:"We're buying companies, not economies. So if companies manage their debt, cash, resources, etc. better than the overall economy, then stocks can go up while the economy does not. " [11]Additionally, companies in the stock market have greater corporate earnings than before. It also very critical to remember that companies worked internationally. My opponent has to prove that the stock market is doing well from Obama's policy and not by policies in the rest of the world. [11]Finally, the deficit was not Ronald Reagan's fault. Fiscal policy was pretty sound, the deficit problem goes to Volcker, although it was needed to get out of the recession. Economist J. W. Mason is working on such a paper:"One interesting thing I discovered working on it is that, despite what we all think we know, the increase in federal borrowing during the 1980s was mostly due to higher interest rate, not tax and spending decisions. Add to the Volcker rate hikes the deep recession of the early 1980s and the disinflation later in the decade, and you’ve explained the entire rise in the debt-GDP ratio under Reagan. What’s funny is that this is a straightforward matter of historical fact and yet nobody seems to be aware of it. " [5]HealthcareThis policy has been a disaster for the Obama administration and Obamacare isn't working. In a survey 77 percent of businesses have reported an increase in healthcare costs following Obamacare. It's a disaster for the health of the American economy. There are still many legal issues ahead:"Republican lawmakers have sued over delays in requiring employers to provide insurance. Some Indiana schools say it's unconstitutional to force them to provide coverage. Another suit says Congress violated a little-known section of the Constitution about which chamber must introduce tax bills first. Others challenge the requirement that insurance cover contraception. " [7] Moore reports the big problems with health care costs and that Obamacare really isn't working:"In 2013, as Obamacare’s policies were phasing in, nearly 5 million policyholders across 31 states and the District of Columbia were notified that their current coverage was being discontinued. This doesn’t include nearly 20 states that weren’t tracking these numbers so the total could have been several million more. In California alone, 1.1 million policies were canceled. In March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Obamacare will result in a total of 1 million fewer people enrolled in employment-based coverage in 2015, increasing to 8 million fewer enrolled in employment-based covered by 2018. That’s a lot of people who haven’t been able to keep the health insurance that they like. " [8]Now we must remember the big lie given by Obama that you can keep your healthcare plan. It has been proven false. Foreign PolicyKeep in mind that everything Reagan did during the Cold War was to support the fall of the Soviet Union. You are looking at foreign policy after the Soviet Union, which was thanks to Reagan's defeat of communism. A man cannot be ahead of his time. Foreign policy is primarily focused on gigantic, major opponents. Today that is ISIS, decades ago that was the USSR. What happens if Reagan doesn't fund these people? Then the Soviets win the Cold War and the fight against freedom in the western world. Before Reagan we lost:1. South Vietnam2. Cambodia3. Laos4. South Yemen5. Angola6. Mozambique7. Ethiopia8. Grenada9. NicaraguaThen when Reagan entered, we won in:1. Bolivia2. Honduras3. Argentina4. Grenada5. El Salvador6. Uruguay7. Brazil8. Guatemala9. The Philippines [10]That is thanks to his great foreign policy that defeated the Soviet Union. Sources1. Niskanen, William, and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record. " (n. d. ): n. pag. Cato. org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.2. Samuelson, Robert. "Volcker, Reagan & History. " RealClearPolitics. RealClear Holdings LLC, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.3. . http://www.census.gov...4. Mitchell, Daniel J. "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 19 July 1996. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.5. Mason, J. W. "The Myth of Reagan's Debt. " J W Mason. N. p. , 06 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.6. "SHRM Survey Findings: Health Care Reform - 2015 Update. " SHRM. Society for Human Resource Management, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.7. Heath, Brad. "More Legal Challenges Ahead for Obamacare. " USA Today. Gannett, 25 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.8. Moore, Stephen. "The Fantasy That ObamaCare Is Working. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 12 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.9. Jacobson, Louis. "Barack Obama Says That What He'd Said Was You Could Keep Your Plan 'if It Hasn't Changed since the Law Passed'" PolitiFact. Tampa Bay Times, 06 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.10. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.11. Hyman, Sean. "Why Stocks Don't Reflect the Economy. " Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.

32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00000-000

Apologies accepted, but no, formal debates are hard for me, which is why I accept so few. We can continue in the forums if you wish. [some churches are not charitable, seems to be Pro's main argument] Not in the conventional sense, no. However, a social club "may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public" (my first source), thus, it is not a charity, ever. Further, social clubs require membership, as opposed to churches which ask for donations. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? How can you expect an organization to pay property taxes if there is no revenue? It's not like they can increase tithing? Conversely, since social clubs "must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments", they can raise the necessary money, or go under. Lastly, churches have limits and restrictions on how they lobby, while social clubs do not. These differences categorically make the institutions unequal, and since they are unequal, similar tax treatment is not required. "Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status." I would argue the biggest difference between a church and a social club is that you have to pay to benefit from the club, where you are not assessed a fee to pray. Also, I am not sure what Pro is arguing about exemptions and what his source has to do with anything regarding tax treatment of these groups. Pro's source has to do with limitation to the amount given, not what is done with that money. In both cases, regardless of how the money is spent, the revenue is not taxed.

32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00001-000

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

32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00002-000

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

32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00004-000

1. By churches, I mean any religious building or organization. It can be a Christian church, but in the context of this debate, it shall apply to Mosques, Synagogues, or anything of like quality that is relevant. 2. The only difference between how non-profit clubs and churches is property taxes. Non-profit clubs pay these taxes, but churches do not. 3. This position would include tax deductions. If a church did enough charitable actions, they may end up paying no taxes at all. 4. I am not calling for the destruction of religion. I am an atheist, but whether or not any religion is true shall not be the topic being argued. For the sake of debate, we will assume that none of these religions or true, or that we cannot determine whether one is true. 5. This debate is not a debate about taxes in general. This is a debate over whether churches, which are largely exempt from taxes (some counties tax them and some don't., but most do not) should pay them. Namely the tax being discussed is property taxes, which most non-profit clubs (not charities. Charities are usually taxed the same as churches) must pay. (Again this differs as property taxes are handled at a more local level.)

a45cbffd-2019-04-18T16:13:18Z-00003-000

con admits the military age should be raised. he should then admit that it's because of an issue of maturity. given this issue exists at that age for military purposes, it surely exists for drinking purposes. he also says people should just be held accountable for their actions. no one disputes this, but being held accountable doesn't necessarily prevent the stupidity in drunk or sloppy driving, which is more prevalent in more youthful drinkers. con says if they are considred adults, why not liet them drink? sure, as with the military point, maybe they should coincide. but that doesn't mean drinking age should be lowered, it means 'adulthood' should be considered higher, for many purposes.

889c08c5-2019-04-18T15:19:31Z-00002-000

The legalization of marijuana, either for medical purposes or otherwise, is entirely unjustifiable. Marijuana only suits one significant purpose, other than the feel good effects of use, and that is as a pain killer "medication. " This is reason enough for advocates in favor of legalization to use as justification for the legalization for medical purposes, at least. I view this argument as more of an excuse for legalization than a legitimate concern. Marijuana isn't the only pain killer on the market, after all, nor is it by any means the most effective. If it is reasonable to legalize marijuana on the basis that it is an effective pain killer, it would follow that the legalization of cocaine would be even more necessary as cocaine, it could be argued, has a more effective numbing effect than medical marijuana. Legalization of marijuana could induce a chain effect of similarly constructed arguments in favor of legalization for a variety of different potent drugs currently illegal. For those that favor the argument that legalization will dissuade use over time, I strongly disagree. I cite alcohol and cigarettes as basic counter examples of this flawed logic. One might argue on the disaster that was alcohol prohibition as evidence that the unlawfulness of marijuana use is no way to combat the problem, and that it only encourages it. Viewing this from a slightly different perspective, one can easily see that despite the unlawfulness of alcohol use during prohibition, use has not sufficiently declined since alcohol prohibition was abolished. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that nearly every American citizen has had at least one alcoholic beverage from the age of 21-40 based on the culture in which we live and the social pressures associated with use to make no mention of the abundance of teen alcohol abuse in society today. Along with social pressures, the legality of use is more encouraging. People are more likely to give something a try when the potential negative repercussions of first time experimental use, both from health and legal considerations, is low. One would not want the same effect to come into being by the legalization of marijuana beyond medical use. It would not be a responsible decision to allow for marijuana to evolve into as much a social norm as alcohol has become, where nearly every American citizen is willing to give it a try. It would be reasonable to take into consideration the epidemic the tobacco company has caused with the creation, manufacture and marketing of cigarettes. A few quick facts on the negative effects of cigarette use include: -- Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand, accounting for around 4,300 to 4,600 deaths per year. -- Half of the people who smoke today and continue smoking will eventually be killed by tobacco. Half of them will die in middle age. -- Globally, 1.3 billion people smoke. Each year tobacco causes five million premature deaths. -- Tobacco use is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide. If current smoking patterns continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020. -- Smoking increases the risk of developing diseases of the respiratory and circulatory systems. These include cancers of the lung, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus and pancreas. Smoking also increases the risk of developing diseases of the urinary tract, pelvis, bladder and digestive tract. -- Etcetera. Source: . http://www.sfc.org.nz...... And the list could go on, but the focus here is the parallel between the legality of cigarette smoking and the potential legalization of marijuana for general use. When cigarettes were originally introduced, their purpose was the feel good effect induced upon use, and the same could easily be said of the reasoning behind casual use of marijuana. Moreover, tobacco has become a public health priority as more and more people take up the habit, and deaths rise in frequency each year. If smoking cigarettes had been illegal, it would not have prevented people from smoking, but it would have given the government the necessary power to prosecute people for distributing the debilitating drug, thus minimizing deaths. Inaction would be immoral.

923e4a2c-2019-04-18T19:39:00Z-00002-000

You start your argument with "I would like to point out that "Drugs" can include medication…such as contraceptives, rendering your whole argument illogical." Ok I CLEARLY stated "illegal drugs", Such as "Heroin, cocaine etc". The last time I looked "medication" and "contraception" is not generally illegal, So immediately your off point, Also you did not choose too ignore my "faulty wording" (as you put it) you made a comment about it (Just for the record) anyway... "To force by law for someone to take a drug is a scary thought. People should at the very least have control over the happenings of their own bodies." So what about the rights of the baby? A baby has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens to its body, It is completely defenceless against anything a mother chooses to do. Cocaine............... Cocaine abuse during pregnancy is associated with various maternal and fetal problems. Cocaine, is a central nervous system stimulant. It has vasoconstrictive effects, significantly decreasing blood flow to the fetus, resulting in periods of decreased oxygen. Many cocaine users use other drugs, exposing the fetus to many drugs, compounding the problems. For women who use cocaine throughout pregnancy it has been proven that they are at a greater risk for premature births of their babes, and a greater chance of delivering still born babies. Heroin............. Heroin easily crosses the placenta, An unborn fetus exposed to heroin has an increased rate of infection. Babies born to mothers who used heroin during pregnancy are also associated with a decrease in birth weight, and an increase in stillbirths. Fetal Addiction of Heroin............ Babies born to mothers who have a heroin addiction have a very difficult time and must stay in the hospital to receive treatment for withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms include hyperactivity, convulsions, diarrhea, fever, sleep abnormalities, and respiratory distress. Once they are discharged from the hospital they may even experience abnormal breathing patterns during sleep, thus increasing the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome seen in these children. The effects of maternal heroin addiction may persist in the offspring for an extended period of time, resulting in poor growth and development. They may demonstrate behavioral abnormalities, including impaired organization and perception skills, impaired motor inhibition and mental retardation. Also as for your argument in regards to Marijuana - "Your argument revolves around mind destroying drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Drugs such as marijuana and tobacco must not be lumped in that same category, however. Surely you would not want to keep someone from having a child simply because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana." A lot of mothers may believe that smoking marijuana does not jeopardize their unborn child. However, on the contrary, tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of marijuana can cross the placenta, so the potential for damage to the fetus does exist. So your wrong again! Also Marijuana is a mind altering drug so yes it can inhibit parental abilities. All children need protecting from abuse including unborn children, A woman's rights to bear children should be suspended until she is in a position both physically and mentally and socially to have a child. I shall save the rest of my argument for my closing statement.

45d1309c-2019-04-18T19:30:52Z-00000-000

I'm glad he could respond to the final round because it would have been a shame to leave the debate as it was. I'll run through a rebuttal of my opponents points, than I'll also point out answers my opponent has clearly failed to give. This will clearly show why abortion should not be illegal. I will also in some cases paraphrase to avoid quoting large chunks of text. 1. My opponent claims that most if not all doctors are at the "bottom of the food chain" meaning they are under qualified / almost the same risk as "unsafe" abortions. He also states that abortion is already as dangerous as it would be if it was "underground", implying that abortion takes place in locations with drop out med students using dirty instruments in unsanitary conditions. I'm afraid that the picture you paint is exactly what it would be like if abortion was made illegal, not how the practice is done currently. You say this isn't a statement of your opinion, but actual facts. You then fail to provide those facts. Let me tell you what the real statistics are. Currently only 0.5% of abortion procedures result in a serious complication which requires further surgery or hospitalisation. Death only occurs in 0.0006% of legal abortion cases. In fact child birth, which you wish to make mandatory to go through is 10 times more likely to cause death. At a stark contrast death during an illegal abortion is the leading cause of maternity death in countries where abortion is illegal. [1] Clearly the facts do not support your view that abortion is either unsafe currently or practised in unsafe, unsanitary conditions performed by unqualifiedly doctors. About the only thing you accurately describe is the way abortion would become if it was made illegal. "Peleus, you also talk about drugs, and how they can have a long term effect on the human, such as increase in violence, which in turn would raise the crime rate. " An important clarification here is that I didn't say I was against drugs because of how it effected the human. I said because of how it effected society. I don't think my opponent could realistically start claiming that abortion is causing the same amount of crime and poverty associated with drugs. Yes there may be examples of women going into a poor psychological state of mind after an abortion, but unfortunately this could still occur after any stage of a pregnancy. There are plenty of cases of postnatal depression occurring as well, that doesn't mean we should outlaw childbirth. There is also no proof that this same woman wouldn't have tried to have an illegal abortion, simply having poor mental and physical health after the procedure. "Also , this will lead to unmarried couples or couples without enough money to support a child, this will force couples to have safe sex thus reducing the women through out America to even need an abortion in the first place. " What makes you think that someone who didn't have the responsibility of having safe sex the first time, will have it after abortion is made illegal? Why will this person simply not try and have an illegal abortion? My opponent then goes on to state that because abortion could get to the point that abortion could turn into something where a baby is alive for days before its then aborted, and therefore it should be banned. Quite frankly I think this is a pretty silly argument. It may be used to try and restrict the level of abortion allowed, but not necessarily making the entire practice illegal. It's unfair to take something legal and take it to the extreme point to try and make it illegal. That's like me saying that since a person could own a pistol nothing is stopping the legislation being bent and bent until it gets to the point where civilians can own nuclear weapons, therefore we should ban all guns. We simply have to examine each choice as it comes along. Again the conceptual question of where life beings is a philosophical one that has no correct answer. What makes the foetus a human being? Simply because it has the DNA of a human? My dandruff has my DNA but that doesn't make it human. Because it can develop into something? An egg isn't a chicken, and an acorn isn't an oak tree. It's up to the mother to decide this philosophical answer. My opponent has tried to characterise abortion as an unsafe dirty practice performed by the dregs of medical society, unfortunately the facts don't support this. Abortion is a relatively safe procedure, even safer than child birth. In return my opponent has failed to address the crippling effect making abortion illegal would have on the pregnant women in society. This would turn abortion from something that causes death in every 0.0006% of cases into the leading cause of maternal death in the nation. We have seen this in other locations where abortion has been outlawed. My opponent has only offered his moral beliefs as to why abortion should be made illegal. In return I've posed the question that he has been unable to answer. Why in the area of a philosophical debate is the government better suited to answer the question than the individual? You are more than welcome to always hold your own moral beliefs, but I firmly believe they shouldn't be legislated into law to restrict the freedom's of others. The only way an individuals choice to answer this conceptual question is restricted is if abortion is made illegal. Otherwise those who don't believe in abortion can carry through their term and those who believe that abortion is ok can exercise their right as well. The moral beliefs of someone should not be forced onto another in this unclear area. I have clearly refuted all of my opponents points, while providing some that he has been unable to sufficiently answer. As a result I urge you all to vote con on this resolution. I thank my opponent for this debate. [1] - . http://www.prochoice.org... (Using the below sources) [1] - The World Health Report 2005 - Make every mother and child count. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2005. [1] - Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced abortion: A worldwide review, 1986. Third edition. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 1996. [1] - Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy and abortion: A public health perspective. In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp. 11-22.

45d1309c-2019-04-18T19:30:52Z-00004-000

Hello Charles15, Firstly I hope I'm a decent opponent for you. I freely admit I don't have a huge background or education on the abortion issue, but as always I'll put my opinion forward to debate, and often to learn by hearing the other side. Let me also say that I think abortion is an extremely saddening and disappointing thing. I also believe that no one should ever use it for birth control purposes, with many other contraceptive methods available. I'd also say that while I believe these things, I also do not think that it should be illegal. Firstly I think we're both going to have to agree that unfortunately there is never going to be a clearly defined point between human and not human. This is a theological debate that can go on forever, simply because there is no answer. I personally believe the foetus has become a human being when it can survive outside the womb of the mother with whatever medical support we can reasonable give. This definition would change for everyone. I could never successfully argue that a microsecond before this point the foetus is not a human, and you could never argue it is. You rightfully give some distressing figures about the amount abortion is used, and I think we should also do everything we can to lower this figure as much as we can, while still retaining a mothers choice to choose (i.e. education of other options etc). Now, we commonly see in places where abortion is illegal, the practice does not stop. It either forces women to travel from state to state, or from country to country, to terminate the pregnancy. Furthermore an even bigger problem can arise by illegal abortion clinics. Suddenly instead of having a legal safe environment to abort the pregnancy a woman is forced into a situation where she does not have the backup of the health system. This can obviously lead to massive problems in regards to women's health and mental wellbeing. I would hate to see us go to a situation where a woman is lying in a hotel room dying from internal bleeding because someone masquerading as a doctor tried to make $500 off her guaranteeing her a ‘safe' abortion. Mother's, if they choose to have an abortion regardless, are obviously safer having it with the backup of the medical system rather than forced to go other routes. I'd also say simply put we cannot enforce our own moral standards across the board onto every person in a country. You mention yourself that you are for abortion in the cases of the mother's health being in danger. If the argument is that abortion is murder clear and simple, then how can you justify killing a "person" in response to another's life in danger? What makes the mother's life more important than that of the child? What about the cases of rape, do you think a woman should be forced to bring a child into the world that was the product of such a terrible and traumatic experience? As soon as you say yes to any of these situations, then you're simply applying your moral standards to the situation, and deeming what is acceptable and what isn't (i.e. health of the mother). Who are we to say that our moral standards are the ones that should be legally imposed onto others, while theirs are ignored? As a result I think that abortion should be legal, simply because we have no right to enforce our moral standards on someone else. I must also comment on your description of the abortion process. While I understand that you do not agree with it, please don't insult the medical professionals that while aren't doing something you agree with, have their own moral beliefs and in their opinion are doing what they believe in. No need to label them all with slanderous names such as "drop out medical student". Also to be fair I would hate to see the procedure you described, but then again I'd be pretty squeamish about seeing open heart surgery also. In summary my counter argument bases around two main points (at this stage). Firstly I believe that making abortion illegal will not stop the practice of abortion, simply moving it underground where women are placed at greater risks because they do not have the medical system in place to support them out of fear of prosecution. Secondly I don't think we have the right to legally impose our moral standards onto others in an area which is a largely unclear theological debate. I understand we enforce society's moral standards in laws all the time; however I think we can agree that murdering a 34 year old father of two is clearer cut than if we abort a foetus 1 day after sperm fertilises an egg. As a result, although I agree abortion is a disappointing and disheartening part of life and society, I don't think the practice should be made illegal.

2399752d-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00001-000

Most people assume "addiction" as the most heard of drug and alcohol but there are many ranging from A-Z. I argue that a person could develop a addiction to hording teddy bears (for example) I quote you on this" Whether the addiction a person has is to alcohol, drugs, gambling, or anything else has nothing to do with the status of an addiction as a disease. The resolution is not about the causes of addictions being a disease, but if addictions themselves are.Now if any given "addiction has become noted then can it be presumed this person suffers from a disease I will call "teddybearitits" will this person then develop physical symptoms from not having the root of what ails them? can we turn this into a life or death situation without a cure? I stand firmly even though this person clearly shows signs of mental or emotional imbalance it does not qualify as a disease.

2399752d-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00002-000

DefinitionsAddictionMy opponent tries to finally offer a definition for addiction in round 3. However she admits that her definition depends on the individual, making it impossible to objectify, unlike my definition which has an objective standard of harm. She has also failed to refute my definition of addiction throughout this entire debate, so we should prefer mine.CaseSince both of my definitions stand I would like to extend the first contention of my case that definitionally negates the resolution. Note that my opponent has never opposed this contention. Right here you can negate.Rebuttal1. Broken Heart SyndromeI'm just going to drop this line of questioning because it has come to the point where my opponent will not admit that anything other than cancer is a disease. She has not answered why the real consequences of broken heart syndrome should not be taken into account.2. Traditional Idea of DiseaseI would argue that the traditional model of disease is irrelevant to this debate. I offered a definition for what a disease it that was never refuted. Thus, my definition is what we shall look to, not tradition. An insurance company or governmental policy neglecting to cover addicts does not deny the condition the status of being a disease.3. ChoiceMy opponent again argues under the premise of choice but has failed to refute my evidence that states genetics cause 40% of alcoholism. You see, choice is not the only factor, some people are born destined to be alcoholics.ConclusionEven with a fourth round to be had, this debate is over. We've come down to simple rehash of old arguments. Here's why I have won.1. Definitional Negation: An addiction is a disease by definition. This is never refuted, thus conceded as true.2. The crux of my opponent's case is that addictions are not genetically influenced but never answers my evidence that 40% of alcoholism is caused by genetics. This undermines the very premise of her arguments. She has no offense left in the round, I do.

2399752d-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00003-000

To refresh my answer Addiction (depending on the individual) may be any compulsive act repeated over and over. Now I ask my opponent, why is it that when real consequences are taking place, Broken Heart Syndrome would not be considered a disease? My answer having a "broken heart is not a disease " the heart itself before some emotionally feeling arose was perfect does not make for a disease one simply can't be defined a a real disease.then we could say a compulsive hoarder who refuses to part with anything' if you pick apart the underlying cause you may find this person has an emotional disorders NOT technically a disease but rather a set of imbalances due to a traumatic occurrence that must be corrected or rewired in order to release these habits. http://www.schaler.net... http://www.thecleanslate.org... This physical change of state is balanced by the arguments that addiction is simply an unwanted behavior, a behavior that doesn't fit the traditional idea of what a disease is. At some point before it becomes a condition over which a person has no control, addiction involves choice and human free will. To that end, it cannot possibly be categorized along with conditions such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or other neurological diseases.The question is an important one because both medical treatment and insurance reimbursement are diagnosis driven. Standards of care are drawn up based on recognized disease states. Insurance companies make decisions on what they will cover by looking at standard treatment plans for approved diagnoses. Government policies are also influenced by how you define addiction.Proponents of the choice model of addiction argue that the consumption of drugs or alcohol is a choice, and that just as people can choose to take drugs or alcohol, they can choose not to.

35f276ef-2019-04-18T11:36:01Z-00004-000

Hello, I am glad that I can have the chance to debate with you. I am a Christian myself, and my dad is the trustee/treasurer of the church, so I know quite a bit about tithing. I hope to have quite the debate with you!Response to tithing being a dogma: Tithing is not a dogma, as it is commanded in the Old Testament. I do not understand why the Old Testament is not good enough for a lot of Christians, as Jesus never said forget what was said in the Old, but only a few concepts were a;tered. However, tithing is mentioned in the New Testament, for example: Mark 12: 41-44: 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.This clearly shows that Jesus is "praising" the woman for her kind act. Jesus also says numerous times that He doesn't come to destroy the Old law, but to fulfill it. My opinion:I completely understand where you and a lot of Christians are coming from, as all the scam artists these days love to rob people of their money. I totally do not agree with a lot of things that goes on in other churches, as sometimes you can search on YouTube and see all these "pastors" preaching their entire sermon on money and how everyone should give so much money to the church. I totally do not agree with this as because some people do not have anything to give in the first place. Also, how could you base an entire sermon on money? That is just wrong. Also, I hate it when preachers call people to give moeny for an alter call or to be prayed upon. That is totally incorrect. How could you abuse your position in the church to make money. I know God does not need money to conduct divine healing, as divine healing was already accomplished at Calvary, and God does not need your money to save a soul. The money is just going to their own pockets. In the end, however, tithing is necessary for the church today. Without money, a church is not able to operate in today's society. Also, most pastors do not have any other job than to fulfill God's calling, therefore they need income. Part of the tithes go to the Pastor's income, while the rest should go to taxes, management of the church, and to charities. Forgive me for taking quite a bit of time to answer, as I was quite preoccupied. Good luck!

35f276ef-2019-04-18T11:36:01Z-00000-000

Hello! Again, I am doing the usual (I literally have fourty minutes left to post this debate....)I would just like to say that the BIble agrees with itself. Yes, you are correct when you say that a lot of the bindings of the Old Law does not necessarily apply to Christians nowadays, however, that does not mean that everything that was said in the Old doesn't matter anymore. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He doesn't change his mind on things. Response to Tithing only occuring once:I understand that you are saying that just because it happened one time doesn't mean you should practice it, but Jesus even says in Luke 6:38 (KJV): 38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.Also, in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, Paul says this: 6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.Therefore, we now know that those who give are blessed. Respone to Jesus and Paul not Collecting Tithes: You say that Jesus and Paul did not tithe, but you have to understand that those times were long ago. Now, just to have a church you haveto pay all these taxes and payments just to operate. Also, Jesus and Paul preached a lot outdoors to a congregation, but now is different. A lot of the time preaching on the corner of the street draws a lot of negative attention, thus interupting the service. I believe that preaching belongs in the church, now in the world that we live in. Also, I live in Canada, where the climate is not all that great (espectially come winter), so preaching on the cornerside isn't that ideal. Where the money goes:In the church that I attend, a portion of the money goes towards payments, part goes towards the Pastor's "money" (he doesn't have a nother job, he is a full time pastor", part goes towards charity and helping the needy, while the rest goes towards building a church (we are currently renting out a place). The money is definitely needed to operate. Response to me being a hypocrite?You are telling me that the Old Covenant does not matter anymore, and then you turn your back and call me a hypocrite for not believing the Old Testament? As you said, certain things in the Old Testament are not necessary anymore, which I agree on, but that doesn't mean you just put away the whole Old Testament. Closing remarks:I understand that if you don't tithe, you are NOT robbing God. I get that. But when God blesses you and keeps you in a good state, with the money you need to live, doesn't it make sense to at least give a portion back to Him, in respect? I do not understand what is so hard to follow about that statement. I thank you for giving me this opportunity. It was quite interesting.

40a0f14e-2019-04-18T12:22:58Z-00002-000

So my opponent admits to some plagiarism, but I still contend all of it was a straight copy and paste. But don't take my word for it... besides the website I posted above, I ask the voters to compare what we see in round one with what they find on this website: http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com... Pay special attention to the paragraph that begins with "Kids will be kids." I continue to await my opponent's first offering of original material. Once I have that, I will finally have something to rebut. I'm supposed to be debating her, not the authors of those two articles.

cd2ee3c8-2019-04-18T19:35:55Z-00004-000

My position in this debate is as follows: No matter what a person has done in their past, a person has the unalienable right to vote. In so long as they are a citizen of the country that they are living in. And, as such, may vote for or against Gay Marriage Issues. Man, in the sense of mankind, will make mistakes. This is an inherent part of being a person. Assuming that my opponent lives in the United States of America (USA from here on) then my opponent lives in a country that allowes murderers, rapists, theives, adulterers, and idol worshipers to vote. Interestingly, it also lets liars, prideful people, and those who are quick to anger vote as well. These also spit in the face of God, yet they can vote. Divorcees then may vote.

ee099714-2019-04-18T19:45:05Z-00005-000

yes, you are right and thank you. Ok yes, people do have the right to defend themselves. because lots of times it comes down to tht point a citizen protecting himself. I will say this I am a boyscout NRA certified. but does that necessarily give me the right to walk around town with a gun in my pants. I hear they are even thinking about letting guns in school. Look at what happened at Virginia teck. I felt so bad for the kids. he was old enough to have a gun, but what even makes me more sick is his plan on getting the gun. the constitution is right is giving us the right to defend ourselves, but so sad to what happens if we abuse it. now can you please do me a favor and define what gun rights should mean in a reasonable sense.

69f38a67-2019-04-18T16:01:27Z-00003-000

Which is exactly why you can go after tobacco company's. You can regulate them and control them if you want, but don't out right ban them! Declaring a war on tobacco would just cause billions of dollars to go down the drain by enforcing it. People drink soda, and it is unhealthy, and if you drink too much, you could become obese and potentially die from obesity. Should we ban soda? I think we should have tobacco education, and educate people about the dangers of it. In fact, more and more addiction help centers are popping up. But declaring a war on tobacco would just waste a lot of money, encourage more people to do it, increase crime rates, because then we would have a bunch of "tobacco" dealers and cartels, and that would cause more gun violence (which you are clearly against) between competition and the police, which could also stretch the police thin, with having to crack down on all the smokers. Then we might have another government agency that would continue to waste our tax dollars; not to mention that would probably add significantly to how many people would be in prisons, causing the prisons to overcrowd, and then we would have to spend more money on prisons. Do you know how much money that would cost? Alot But also, you want the government to make the choice for millions of property owners, that people can't smoke on their property. It is up to the owners, if they want that kind of activity going on, and if they do, the government shouldn't make the decision for them. Do you think that's right. When they start making decisions for people like that, what's to stop them from telling people where they're kids can go to school, and what they can eat and drink? ___________________________________ |PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK| -------------------------------------------------- Also I find the "location bans" are really ineffective, because people do it anyway, which means you would still have to get people to patrol and enforce those unreasonable smoking bans.

1dfc3384-2019-04-18T18:40:31Z-00004-000

1: all "small arms", http://dictionary.reference.com... anything an average adult male can carry on his person. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces. 2: this implies there should be no controls on guns unless said guns / arms are used to harm people criminally. 3: I will defend self defense as inherent and universal and the right to bear arms as part of our inherent right to defense. 4: The BATFE in u.s., the senate, any group that makes or enforces laws regarding firearms. And I am referring for the purposes of this debate to u.s. adults, even tho i live in Canada. Also, less technicality, more debatey. ....

3d8d264e-2019-04-18T19:39:58Z-00001-000

I would like to remind you that this is not about professional athletes and their attitude but more so about sport being fun. While your emphasis is on professional athletes being a multi million dollar industry, I am sure that no body would deny how much some of the professional athletes make. IN Fact they make so much money that they would not have to work or participate at all unless they still got some enjoyment with the sport. So I present to everyone my prodigious argument that sport IS still fun . I would like to end my debate by a couple of quotes and their meanings. One is 'Life be in it' this is encouraging more people to take care of their lives and be encouraged to participate in some sort of sport- to enjoy what they are doing and to have fun. I am sure that you have heard from many sources that the way to learn something and be good at it is firstly to have a passion and secondly to have fun in what you are doing. by having fun, you learn alot quicker. Sport is still fun. there would not be the amount of people involved in sport if it was not fun. many people think of Summertime as sports mean fun, fresh air, and fitness. Soccer is the most popular team sport in the world – what more is there to say? This sport that captures the imagination and fun of billions has also led to the creation of a new species – the soccer mom. Ferrying her children to their game, her most pressing thoughts are about whether she was responsible for bringing the bag of orange slices to the game this week as she sits there watching little 'johnny' having fun playing. The sports business journal writes to tell us that sport should be fun safe and accessible to many people. This is what is happening now . there is a deep difference in having a passion and having fun. Sport is still fun for everyone.

ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00000-000

To begin with, to save space, I will be using "SNS" in the place of "social networking sites". Also, I am going to refrain from copy-pasting my opponent's argument if possible, and would greatly appreciate it if any reader would refer to the appropriate part of my opponents arguments to see what I am talking about.. I would like to briefly revisit my opponent's Round 2 argument now that he has posted his sources. 1. Economical: My opponent has failed to post his source for this contention. 2. Political: The source my opponent gave barely mentions using social networking sites as a means of campaigning, but instead implies candidates are concentrating on other methods such as distributing fliers. To defend my contentions... 1."-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." http://www.nzherald.co.nz... Here is the source, so this contention must remain in consideration. Also, it is absurd to think that danger of identity theft is positive. The devastating effect that identity theft has on peoples' lives far exceeds any caution it encourages. Furthermore, it is evident that these teens are not even using the caution that my opponent suggests they are since 4.5 million are at risk for ID theft. In addition, it should be noted that the resolution is essentially asking whether or not the US is better with the existence of social networking sites. Therefore, teaching a teen how to use these sites with respect for others is insignificant in terms of its impact. To put my refutation into perspective, say John Doe posts his birth date, phone number, and other similar things onto his Facebook page. A criminal comes along and steals John's identity, which he uses to rack of thousands and thousands of dollars in charges. Do you think that the tradeoff comes even close to equal (thousands of dollars lost for a lesson learned)? 2. "- 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." Your first bullet point is of course true, however that is irrelevant. The hours are being wasted, at a huge cost to businesses. And actually, I did cite this statistic, but here it is again http://www.cnn.com... 3. "-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." Here is the source for both stats - http://www.time.com... I fail to see how the resolution stating "social networking web sites" refers to the intended usage of them from creation. Obviously these sites were not created for anything negative, so there would be no chance for the Con side if your interpretation was true. The resolution is referring to any effects that are caused by social networking sites. 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." I would like to point out my argument, which you have not even attempted to refute, that in this resolution anything on/caused by/catalyzed by these sites is relevant. Though these sites are not responsible for all cyberbullying, they are still responsible for a significant portion. Additionally, I would like to point out that the single statistic that my opponent is not my contention, the rest of my contention stands unrefuted. 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." (I will address points 5 and 6 as one, as my opponent's refutation was nearly identical) Here is the source: http://www.ctn.org.au... Yet again I would like to direct you towards my unrefuted argument that anything on/caused by/catalyzed by these sites is relevant under the resolution Now, to refute my opponent's case. 1. Simply because 55% said that SNS have a place in the business world doesn't give any indication of its impact. Also, the fact that 55 is more than 50 means absolutely nothing. You said ""It is no longer just an outlet for personal use -- it's rapidly becoming a must for business success," says Rohrer," however, this is just a quote thrown out there. It has no evidence to back it up so I would ask for this to be discounted from consideration. In quoting Mr. Palfrey, my opponent is failing to realize that it bear little significance what theoretically should happen, only what has happened, is happening, or will happen. The reality is that these sites are not safe, no matter how much SNS want users to think that they are. Next, when my opponent refutes my argument, she ignores my point and again tries to refute my cyberbullying statistic. I have already addressed that, but seeing as my opponent has not addressed my refutation of her contention, her contention stands negated. In addition, I used common sense to point out the flaws in your contention, so I have no source. 2. You say that this must be considered when combined with the others, however this only goes to show the weakness. I am trying to show you the flaws in your contentions one by one to show you how weak your argument it, so my refutation stands. 3. They don't enhance our democracy, all they do is provide yet another place to talk. This, again, is commonly replicated all over, and as such is highly insignificant. 4. 236 members married is realistically very little. First, take into consideration that this is only 118 couples. According to http://www.cdc.gov..., 6109 couples marry every day. When the grand scheme of things is considered, eHarmony is insignificant. You have not provided any other statistics, so we must assume that all similar sites are equally insignificant. As the impact of my arguments far overwhelms the impact of my opponent's arguemnts, as well as the vast majority (if not all) of my contentions standing while my opponent's are proven to be weak

ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00003-000

First of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. "Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an "electronic footprint" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. "Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees "wasting time" on their social networking" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, "People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens." Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like "You look just awesome in this new movie," and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said "People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them." This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, "potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result." This is the fault of the individual and not the site.

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

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

ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00005-000

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. "Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum." Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.

8dcfa922-2019-04-18T12:43:15Z-00001-000

i'm sorry, i cant agree with your statement, firstly you have altered your statistics and secondly you cant ignore the facts that humans are more important than birds and thousands of human deaths are being ended to quickly to the impacts of nonrenewable energy. i speak at seminars every week discussing the issue that non renewable energy has on the environment, and i still am shocked at how many people don't believe that wind turbines are doing far more good than bad, and that they will protect us from the fate that will soon come if we are to continue with non renewable. there is roughly 40 years left of oil to use, once that time is up, what do you think future generations will say, obviously they will say how ignorant and how useless our generation was, in not providing in viable source of energy, which will leave them in a undeveloped world.

8dcfa922-2019-04-18T12:43:15Z-00005-000

The consequences for ignoring the real problem here will lead to a disastrous future for mankind, if the renewable energy that we have is halted and replaced with filthy non renewable energy, in years to come, they will regret it because we know now that renewable energy will save earth. Coal oil etc. is destroying the earth, it can"t be re used it is dangerous for our health. But renewable energy can be re used and the emissions coming for this are nowhere near the levels coming from non- renewable energy. The arguments that are used to support wind turbines causing health risks are that living near wind farms cause health risks such as raised blood pressure, stress, nausea, motion sensitivity and apparently the worst of all sleep deprivation. THIS IN FACT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!!. Wind turbines are a very efficient way of creating renewable energy, and we can only gain from wind energy. wind turbines are providing a safe and humane way of producing energy from humans to use. fracking and coal mines are digging up carbon dioxide and poisonous gases and toxins that are effecting organisms living on this earth , while wind turbines don't. some claim that wind turbines create unbearable noise while in fact, its just wind and it not harmful at all, (and honestly doesn't make any noise).

6d359933-2019-04-18T14:06:36Z-00005-000

Illegal immigrants are blood sucking from America. They are on welfare, they steal jobs, and kill our white race.

3db4725b-2019-04-18T15:56:56Z-00003-000

con argues that given enough time, the fattest and stupidest among us would not further their genes. that's the problem, though. for the most part, they do further their genes. sure, the most extreme examples don't, but that doesn't affect macro evolution, just micro evolution at best. and even if it was an issue, the fattest and stupidest haven't ever had much success breeding for anyway. "These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system." i am not able to decipher this from con. it seems somewhat incoherent.

e4ee9d3a-2019-04-18T17:07:15Z-00001-000

As I said it has more to do with upbringing than what is shown. If the child was raised in an environment where crime is the culture, then a violent image might encourage them to resort. But that has to do with upbringing. Violence can affect, but it takes a parent's upbringing.

2403586e-2019-04-18T13:53:49Z-00004-000

Amendment one provides the freedom of speech, press, expression, and the right to assemble. The way one dresses is a form of free speech and expression. Requiring students to wear uniforms goes against the first amendment. Just because minors are in school, does not strip them of their amendment rights. People are fully accessible to 100% of the same rights they have in and out of school. Forcing students to wear uniforms is technically against the law. Instead of teaching the youth to not wear clothes in fear of being "bullied," how about stopping the bullies themselves? This relates to many other topics. You would not tell a women to stop wearing exposing clothing because she is deemed as a "slut" or "prostitute" or "free property etc." to others, would you now? We teach our youth generation to be themselves and express themselves with confidence. This would send the wrong message and would be contradictory to what educators said in the past. The difference is, not all jobs require uniforms. It is the person's choice to choose to join such a job that requires a uniform. If all jobs required that, then it would be a completely different story. But that is just not the case. Schools that force students to wear uniforms give them no choice in their own amendment and freedom rights. It is a different story to have uniforms in private schools because the students consent to the wardrobe, and can just transfer to a public school if they are not happy with it. Feeling "left out" or "different" is another way one says that people are dressing to their own style and fashion. And if that means that a group of kids wear one article of clothing, and other group wears a different article, it is completely fine. One group is no superior to the other, and in reality, nobody is being "left out" or "dis included" when they are given the option to their freedom of expression.

653f0284-2019-04-18T13:40:39Z-00000-000

thank you for your views during this debate. After 4 rounds of reading through you views and evidence. I have to admit that you have made me be able to clearly see your views. Although my views at the moment have not changed, the information you provided will help me with further research on the topic. One of the last things I will say is that I hope that your were able to understand my viewpoint as well. I still believe that Electric Engines are the way of the future, but for now the human race will have to rely on ICEs and the alternative fuels sources that will be provided

653f0284-2019-04-18T13:40:39Z-00003-000

In the end, a switch over requires that all aspects of the production and cost of running of EVs is cheaper than the production and cost of ICEs. When this is the case, and only when this is the case can the EV dominate the market. The problem here, and this is my opinion (though well educated, my degree is Chemical Engineering), is that ICEs will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future. Because the technology is 100+ years old we have the opportunity to refine it in ways not thought of. Improving combustion, weight reduction of components, etc. And while the newer EVs certainly have a large capacity for improvement, it will take at least 100 years for them to catch up to where ICEs will be at that point. The depletion of carbon based fuels isn't really a major concern, as the ICE can be, and has been, adapted to other fuel sources as shown above. As such, only the ability to improve the engine becomes an issue.

1b8847b8-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00004-000

Well, this debate has been a lot less fun than I had hoped. Nonetheless, I will continue with rebuttals. Ultimately, this all I need to prove is that fat-shaming is harmful while disproving my opponent's proof that fat-shaming is beneficial. Believe it or not, Pro has done my part. Let's examine what my opponent has argued. "'In a study of 93 women, exposure to weight stigmatizing information made overweight women, but not normal weight women, eat more calories and feel less in control of their eating'" Really!?You pick this quote? Are you trying to make things easy for me? In this quote, it shows that after being fat shamed, women become depressed. Also, their is a major flaw in my opponent's thought process. He thinks, "Well, being fat is bad. It doesn't matter how fat one is. Fat is unhealthy." Yeah, this is all good if you ignore the fact that becoming fatter is unhealthy. The fact is, the fatter you become, the more at risk you are for disease. [1] There. I've shown that fat shaming is harmful. Now, what about the positive aspects, the crowd shouts. What about them, I shout back. Because, if you'd care to notice, my opponent never put down solid evidence for benefits of fat shaming. That's right, laidies and gentlemen of the voters, my opponent never mentioned a benefit. Before you going tearing at my throat with the claim that I'm ignoring point Pro made, let's again examine what Pro said: "Some believe that making overweight people feel ashamed of their weight or eating habits actually helps motivate them to lose weight" Yay! Someone has faith in this [Insert sacatic voice and clapping here]! I don't have to do anything more. There is absolutely no evidence of benefits, just hypothetical think. Now, since everything has been taken care of , I don't see any point in continuing to- 1. http://www.niddk.nih.gov...

bc0bd762-2019-04-18T14:17:36Z-00001-000

what