Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai
/

NanoTouche2020

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Subset (3)

corpus · 5.75k rows

Split (1)

train · 5.75k rows

_id stringlengths 37 39	text stringlengths 3 37.1k
aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00003-000	Thank you, Con.REBUTTALS:"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns."This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below. You can see the difference between the two.My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you "high" and the other does it in a "drunk" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get "high." In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely."Marijuana is NOT addictive."This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad."Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke."I'm pretty sure it is."It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness." Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.ARGUMENTS:Marijuana can affect your mental health immenselyAccording to the American Medical Association: "Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders." It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:-Random thinking-A distorted sense of time-Paranoia-Anxiety-Forgetfulness-DEPRESSIONMany Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]Marijuana can affect your physical health immenselyMarijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:-Dizziness-Shallow breathing-Red eyes-Drymouth-Increased appetite (munchies)-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.Marijuana can affect your fetus babyA study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.ConclusionI believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.Your turn, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]- http://www.webmd.com...[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...
16d7ef8d-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00004-000	Thanks to my opponent for issuing this challenge, as I have often wondered why people supported this. To maintain the flow of the debate, I'll rebut my opponents arguments, and then make some of my own.RE: Hypothetical scenariosCut the rhetoric out and get to the facts. My opponent says-" If a woman is raped and the said rapist does not wear any form of protection, and the woman is not on a birth control substance of some kind, and does not have access to a contraceptive, this is an issue because: 1) the woman is forced to give birth" Less than 1% of abortions happen due to rape or incest [1]. The scope of people affected by this problem is ridiculously small. My opponent also contends that the pain of childbirth is not worth the life of a foetus (his second point). This is absurd, as killing a child is a lot worse than putting them up for adoption. Would you rather be poor or dead? Wait... Not your choice according to Pro... It's your mothers choice... My opponent later states that-"Another hypothetical situation would be a situation by which a woman has sex with a partner and their partner's condom breaks"Everyone acknowledges that having sex has risks, such as protection breaking, but you should go into the action accepting that it may happen, and willing to accept the consequences. If you were worried about getting pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Everyone knows that condoms break. That doesn't make birth control a "basic human right," as Pro stated in Round 1. Keep in mind that this is the terminology that Pro used, as I will be addressing it shortly.Also, I'd like to bring up how casually my opponent brings up getting "rid of the baby." I'd like the voters to realize that getting rid of the baby is equivalent to ending a life for the sake of a woman's convenience. If Pro disagrees with this conclusion, he can try to justify ending a human life for the sake of convenience in Round 3.Re: Popular RebuttalsRebut my arguments, not the ones you cherry-picked. I'll address religious arguments later, though.Re: HealthMy opponent uses a far left birth control promotion website to tell you that birth control should be payed for by taxpayers because its healthy. The source states that women are healthier because they know they're not pregnant... I don't really know how to refute this, as knowing you don't have another human being inside of you doesn't make you any healthier... The website seems to say that knowing you're not pregnant gives you a pass to drink and smoke without harming the baby, which you clearly didn't intend to ever have.Life of a child vs "health" of a woman. Come on, guys...Now on to my arguments.Contention 1: The Financial ArgumentWhy is it the taxpayer's burden to pay for someone elses stuff? It's not like birth control is too expensive. Target sells contraceptives at a rate that would have buyers without health insurance paying $9 per month [2].Pro's unbelievably biased source goes on to say that taxpayers waste 12 billion dollars per year on unplanned pregnancy. They don't see that most of this money funds abortion, which many taxpayers are morally opposed to anyway [3]. Of that, roughly 500 million dollars goes to Planned Parenthood, a sponsor and advocate of abortion [4]. Not something taxpayers would support, now is it?Contention 2: The anti-entitlement argument:Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made. Nobody is burdened to pay for other peoples stuff. It's pretty simple.Contention 3: The one you've heard beforeDon't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [5]. There are a lot of ways to keep from having a child whilst not banging everything that moves.Another thing I'd like to address: Human rightsWhat is a human right? A human right is [6] “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”This is a religious issue! You cannot have an atheistic debate over rights endowed by a Creator! If you believe that contraceptives are a human right, you assume that a superior being was all like-"Yeah sure. Kill my creation if it makes you uncomfortable."Questions for Pro:Is it morally justifiable to make someone else pay for your things if you can afford them? If yes, then who can't afford $9 of contraceptives? And why should we pay for them?Is it morally justifiable to make taxpayers pay for something that they believe is a gross violation of the human rights of the foetus?Is it morally justifiable to make others take responsibility for your mistake in the bedroom?Is it morally justifiable to kill a child so you can drink and smoke for 9 months?Would a just God give someone the right to kill his creation?Thank you for challenging me. I await Round 3.Sources1) http://www.operationrescue.org......2) http://www.theblaze.com...3) http://www.breitbart.com...4) http://www.foxnews.com...5) http://waitingtillmarriage.org......6) http://louderwithcrowder.com...
16d7ef8d-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00005-000	I must also note that my arguments will probably be a tad spacious time-wise, as I have a fairly busy schedule. [1] Hypothetical Scenarios - If a woman is raped and the said rapist does not wear any form of protection, and the woman is not on a birth control substance of some kind, and does not have access to a contraceptive, this is an issue because: 1) the woman is forced to give birth 2) the woman either has to foster the child away after going through the pain of childbirth or has to raise them until they are old enough to support themselves. This is a common argument in the abortion/contraception right argument, but it is only because it is a logical issue any country where women don't have this right have to face. Another hypothetical situation would be a situation by which a woman has sex with a partner and their partner's condom breaks. What do they do now? The woman is now pregnant after taking a pregnancy test and now has to either: a) raise the child or b) foster them away. If they don't have the right to abortion/contraceptives, they can't get rid of the baby and it's only at that point a burden on them. [2] Popular Rebuttals - Many people who oppose the right to contraceptives/abortion advocate that the reason for their opposition is because of their religion. This is not, however, an appropriate way to refute anything in the political world; as not everyone conforms to the same religious beliefs, nor does anyone have to. Most countries are finally coming together in their political systems to formulate secular laws and conditions for their people. This is right step to make, but that is going off topic. The point to this contention is that religion should not be a reason to justify someone not having the right to control their body - regardless of the situation. Another popular counter-argument also seems to be that apparently if people don't want children they simply should avoid having any form of sex. Not all forms of sex lead to childbirth, and this is very reason for the existence of birth control/contraceptives. As long as the people in question are careful, that is fine and they are not likely to have a kid; there are hypothetical and less likely circumstances, but overall it can be avoided pretty well. Also, sex should not be strictly a procreative activity, either. [3] Health - Generally, birth control and contraceptives when it comes to health can be dangerous in certain forms, and healthy for women in others. Broadly speaking, at the end of the day, most of these such things are actually healthy for women. And there is a whole series of health benefits that will provided below. Note: the following source is an article from bedsider, though each point made is supported with a different source citation. . http://bedsider.org...;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I apologize that my arguments were not longer, but again, busy schedule.
db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00005-000	I would like to begin by defining a couple of terms. If my opponent disagrees with my definitions, then he/she can suggest and justify alternative definitions, however terminology should be agreed upon within the first half of the debate. I will not use dictionary definitions; let us just keep it simple. Possession means owning something. Use means smoking/inhaling/eating/vaporizing/etc. marijuan. Recreational marijuana means that adults ABOVE THE AGE OF 21 YEARS OLD are allowed to purchase up to SEVEN GRAMS of marijuana for any reason, with no medical conditions required. Legalized means that we remove the penalties from marijuana activities and that we regulate marijuana in dispensaries at which consumers of age can purchase it. The U. S. refers to all fifty states of the United States of America; the resolution seeks to essentially overturn the national ban on cannabis. The framework for this round should be net benefits. Unless my opponent is able to demonstrate that the costs of legalizing marijuana in the U. S. overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits, the Pro should win the round. Contention 1: Economic Benefits. Legalizing pot allows the United States to allow a wealth of economic benefits in the form of tax revenue and also in the form of liberating costly prisoners from incarceration. We have already seen examples of collecting revenue. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), between January 2014 and October 2014, Colorado accrued 40 million dollars of tax revenue by legalizing marijuana and allowing 21+ citizens to purchase it. Suppose that we extrapolated legalization to the whole country. According to the Huffington Post, this would result in $8.7 billion per year in the form of state and federal taxes. Taxing any good or service allows the economy to grow, because it provides money that is uesd for other programs. In the case of marijuana legalization, these programs translate to education, health care, and drug addiction treatment, valuable impacts in our society. Furthermore, legalizing marijuana prevents costs that are associated with incarcerating individuals. According to the DPA, approximately 750 thousand citizens are arrested for an infraction of marijuana law each year. Furthermore, the cost of incarceration is $47,000 per prisoner per year. This translates to 7 to 10 billion dollars per year that are wasted on locking up stoners (rather than rapists or murderers). Clearly, not only does legalizing marijuana create money; keeping it illegal costs money. This 35 billion dollars could be used to reduce the national deficit, solve other crimes, or perhaps reduce taxes on American citizens. Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana reduces crime. Legalizing marijuana prevents police officers from wasting their time arresting harmless stoners, when they could be spending these efforts and resources fighting actually dangerous crimes, such as murder, theft, or rape. According to RollingStone Magazine, marijuana arrests are no longer real "police work"; law enforcement would rather spend their time tackling other crimes such as murder and rape. This argument is intuitive rather than logical; less time wasted on activity X (stopping pot smoke) leads to more time available for activity Y (stopping murder). LearnLiberty echoes this message: "legalizing marijuana frees up resources to solve other crimes". The impact is clear: a reduction in violent crimes that hurt American citizens, if the U. S. is smart enough to legalize pot. Contention 3: Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates racial discrimination in law enforcement. It should be clear to the layperson that most marijuana arrests are against racial minorities, particularly blacks. A black individual is no more likely to use pot than a white person but, in Washington D. C. , is over 8 times more likely to be arrested for it. This is what one could refer to as a Jim Crowe system; blacks suffer from mass incarceration much more than whites do, but they do not commit any more wrongdoings than whites. In order to provide for an American system of equality of opportunity and justice without regard to skin color, marijuana should be legalized. This will prevent irrationally suspicious police officers from locking up "dangerous blacks" (who, in truth, are not the least bit dangerous; they are just minding their own business); this racist enforcement is unethical, discriminatory, and clearly non-beneficial. Contention 4: Regulated marijuana is healthier marijuana. When alcohol was prohibited (i. e. before the 1920's), this led to an extensive black market whereby Americans still found ways to produce, purchase, and enjoy alcoholic beverages such as rum and beer. The same phenomenon occurs with marijuana. Even if marijuana is perceived to be dangerous, keeping it illegal does not deter its use. In fact, the criminal nature of cannabis provides a compelling reason for drug cartels to enter the country and sell cannabis, with no regard to whether the weed is tainted with dangerous chemicals like PCP. Since the illegality of marijuana fails to have any deterrent effect, legalizing pot will allow the government to closely control and regulate it. This allows for high-quality marijuana, meaning that consumers will enjoy marijuana that has no dangerous chemicals in it and that achieves standards of safety and health. This makes it a safer option. The influx of drug cartels is associated with the trade of weapons and also with violence, coercion, and sometimes murder. It is easier for a teenager to obtain a joint than it is for him to obtain a can of beer. Since Americans smoke pot regardless of whether or not it is legal, we should legalize it so that citizens purchase it from trusted, regulated dispensaries rather than untrustworthy, sketchy black-market dealers. Contention 5: Americans have freedom of choice. An American citizen should be able to do whatever she want, so long as her actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Even if skeptics were successfully able to argue that smoking pot is harmful (which I would disagree with), Americans can choose to engage in harmful activities, as long as the others in society do not feel the effects of these choices. People are allowed to eat candy, drink beer, watch TV all day, and smoke cigarettes. Why should we limit the behavior of an individual simply due to archaic notions without any substantial evidence? Marijuana is used for a wide variety of medicinal and leisure purposes, and its effects have been described as uplifting, stress-relieving, and relaxing. To keep marijuana illegal is at variance with the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when America was established as an independent nation. If individuals want to smoke pot, they should be able to do so, particularly in the privacy of their own homes. For many citizens, occasional marijuana use improves the quality of their lives and has medicinal benefits. Some who need it for medical use are too impoverished to afford to obtain a medical recommendation from their doctors, making their medicinal options severely limited. Keeping marijuana illegal is an invasion of privacy. In short, to legalize pot is to provide Americans with the freedoms of choice and discretion and the liberty that they deserve. I have posted evidence below that substantiates my claim. In short, the legalization of marijuana leads to benefits that address the economy, other crimes, racism, national safety, and the freedom of choice. These are all significant benefits that contribute to my proposed framework of "net benefits". A reason why keeping marijuana illegal is disadvantageous is equivalent to a reason why making marijuana legal is advantageous. Too many dollars are wasted in prohibition. Too many lives are locked up in prohibition. To many blacks and Hispanics are unfairly arrested in prohibition. Too many drug cartels enter the U. S. in prohibition. Finally, too many freedoms and basic liberties are violated in prohibition. For these reasons, the possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U. S. Please vote Pro. I await Con's contentions. . https://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.rawstory.com... . http://www.rollingstone.com... . http://www.learnliberty.org... . https://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.collegiatetimes.com...
8f544a89-2019-04-18T17:45:35Z-00004-000	"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -The Constitution of the United States Because a clear reading of the Constitution forbids such, I affirm the the resolution no gun laws should be passed restricting the right to bear arms.
8093f713-2019-04-18T16:25:52Z-00000-000	"You make it seem as if robots and artificial intelligence solve everything. They do not."- Nothing is Perfect. " First of all, the fact that RBE requires an advanced AI means it cannot possibly be implemented today." - This coming from the world's foremost authority on Automation? This A.I is a glorified calculator." Ironically, the only way to achieve such a system would rely on capitalistic principles."- In the same way that the cells in our body still reproduce similar to how our ancient ancestors did. Yes. "How can an RBE produce or innovate?" I am going assume you are basing this question on " Who is going to do the work to improve the systems" The answer is who ever wants to. This may sound counter intuitive to all of your years in a capitalist society, but there is plenty of real world evidence that people will innovate with out the need for financial compensation.Exhibit A: http://www.linux.com... There are many distros of Linux that are more pleasant to use than Windows and are absolutely, 100% free... given freely, distributed freely and developed further by a massive community who devotes their highly skilled efforts-for-free, to developed a product that some one else can use.I recommend you watch this: "How would this system determine who deserves what good, how much of it, and for how long?" - Indiscriminately, by how much resource is available where. As long as they need it. Your fundamentally looking at things as if they must be possessed but the goal of RBE is to accomplish access abundance. Simply meaning that what you want is available when you need or want it. Mind you, living necessities are taken care of already and everything else is practically a want. A large number of the goods you want, will be fabricate from 3D printers. Things like bowls,civil ware,cups and even more complex things will become replicable in the not too distant future. " Fossil fuels are exponentially more efficient than any renewable resource, and solar power in its state today couldn't provide a fraction of what fossil fuels can."- At an extremely high cost, environmentally. Many components in the RBE are designed to make more efficient use of power so that the less-energy dense renewable resources still provide a quality of life on par with our modern standard of living in the united states... except for everyone. There is not enough fossil fuels for everyone to live like Americans but there is plenty of sun light,win,tidal and Geo thermal power. Our living spaces must be completely redesigned to optimize energy use, rely mostly on human power to travel " around town" distances while long distance travel is handled by previously pointed out technologies. The city to the future: is circular in design. Other such factors that save energy is a switch to a primarily vegetarian diet."No system is self sustaining, and thus requires human involvement." - I agree, lots of human involvement. You're confusing the lack of requirement to do boring-repetive and energy consuming tasks just to stay alive, for lack of anyone doing anything. Humans love doing things, we like exploring and mastering tasks ( reference: RSA video) and we love accomplishing things. It's in our nature. Only a fraction of our society will do much work, no big deal... Only a fraction of our society does meaningful work today anyways. " That is what an RBE will dissolve into: mass control over the lives of people."- This is conjecture. " If a person in an RBE desires more, if he wants to excel, how can he do it?"- By creating it himself. I don't think you understand... objects... as in cameras and so forth... have no value. They are just things, which are widely available. In an RBE- all of the information in the human repository can be accessed freely. Anytime. Want to learn how to design electronics? the information is literally there. We already see president for this in the Modern Internet... You tube DIY: Desired topic. Literally any topic. Free universal education is just the next logical step and people do love teaching as well so this free society will also have human professors."He cannot improve himself because every nuance of his life is beyond his control."-This statement has no basis, I suspect you have not been clicking my links or if you have- you have not been fully taking in their content. the RBE is a service, not a government. There is really little need for a government by I suspect we will have some type of Government anyways. It might resemble a republican democracy, or it might be a semi-representative democracy. It won't have a great amount of power either way as its task is more maintenance,research and development. " Therein lies the beauty of capitalism, that the offspring of a poor immigrant can rise to become millionaires. " That was beautiful in the early 20th century. Even though it still happens today... its one person that lives a beautiful life while his brothers and sisters less than a 100 miles away are living in poverty. This is what I was talking about the Capitalist conservative vilifying the poor and blaming the helpless for being helpless. It isn't beautiful at all when we have technology and production enough to give everyone what they need, when they need it. Its disgusting... its preserve... and its sick to see some guy running around in a Hummer... or a laborgini while he justifies to him self living on the backs of the people who made his wealth possible. It is revolting as sewage. "Capitalism is not based on static "classes" as many people like to assume, but rather a fluid movement of people."- Did I say the classes where static... no people rise and fall all the time, but there are still classes and static or not, money buys you anything you like, even immunity from justice as I demonstrated. What a corrupt and sick way of looking at the world causes people to admire those who waste the most resources among us, gorging them selves at others expense? Do you really want to know where your 5$ walmart T-shirts come from... http://en.wikipedia.org... , http://www.cnn.com... The truth will make you miss the old days when we used Mexican child labor. " an RBE may provide an equality of outcome."- Than why are we still debating this?"But it destroys any notion of opportunity, individualism, and responsibility."- All of this is conjecture." . And an RBE will inevitably degrade into a violence, because people will want to control their own lives instead of being mandated to by whoever is in power. "- I still don't think you really took in any of my sources. RBE will give you more control... So much so that you will not be localized to any one location, an RBE will be global. hop on the train and go to Germany for a day... or hit the beach in California. Go attend a lecture in Sweden or maybe stay with your cousin in Michigan for a weekend. Anyone, everyone, when ever they wish. The RBE offers the elite life style to everyone. This the difference science makes, this is the difference made by using systems strategies in our real world, daily lives. In conclusion, RBE offers us every thing that we have ever been promised... the paradise world of tomorrow. We can buy it for your children and their children at the price of letting go of our old systems. They served us well in the past, RBE is made possible because we had a capitalist system... HAD, a capitalist system. These systems are no longer serving us. Capitalism is no longer doing what it promised our forefathers. We have out grown it. The power to chose the world of tomorrow is ours today. CHOSE.Thank you pro for the debate, I very much enjoyed our exchange. Feel free to issue a challenge at any time.
a45cc01c-2019-04-18T16:12:03Z-00005-000	a very common argument in favor of lowering it, is that if you are old enough to serve in the military you should be old enough to drink. i can see the logic that the two should go together, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the age should be lowered. more like, the age to enlist should be raised. many if not most who join the military are being taken advantage of due to their youthful naivette and lack of options. if they required the age be later, maturity would deter many. (among other committments they make, sure). also, at that age, ddeaths and harm is extremely common due to these folks. as the age raises w maturity, the problems decrease. basically, at the age of 18 most kids are mature enough.
68d82bb6-2019-04-18T19:14:17Z-00003-000	No, merit pay is not good, as stated in my first contention. Contention 1: Merit pay does not work Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." b."The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since." Sub point 2: Student achievement cannot be accurately measured. a."the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing." Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair "Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009 b.Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance." "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007 I have shown reasonable evidence that proves that merit pay does not work, and has not worked in the past.
68d82bb6-2019-04-18T19:14:17Z-00005-000	Contention 1: Merit pay does not work Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans "did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements." b."The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since." Sub point 2: Student achievement cannot be accurately measured. a."the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing." Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair "Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009 b.Standardized Test Scores May Be Unreliable. Most merit pay programs are tied to the scores students receive on the tests required by Bush's No Child Left Behind Law. As the American Federation for Teachers and the National Education Association have pointed out, these standardized test scores are seldom reliable and do not provide an accurate barometer of a teacher's performance." "Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10, 2007 Contention 2: PUNISHES TEACHERS FOR UNCONTROLLABLE FACTORS Sub point 1: Academic achievement is very difficult to define which is what merit pay is determined by. a.David Riegel, a former classroom teacher, argued, "Teacher evaluation is more complicated than simply looking at test scores. It requires careful examination of specific teacher behaviors in the classroom, of how a teacher relates to students, and his or her command of the subject matter they are teaching. This cannot be judged simply by looking at test scores, which may be high in some cases in spite of uninspiring instruction: it requires an effective and highly skilled administrator who knows what she is looking for when she observes a teacher interacting with her students, and who is skilled at helping teachers improve. In short, pay for performance provides an easy way out when quality supervision of instruction is what should really be taking place." b. [Mary Gryphon of the Cato Institute says, "The system can't simply reward high scores. If it did, it would favor teachers in wealthy neighborhoods whose students came to school with excellent skills. Nor can the system reward only improvement. If it did, it would unfairly penalize teachers whose students were already scoring too well to post large gains." Sub point 2: Doesn't account for the different types of students. a.But success in terms of test scores depends on many factors, mostly too obvious to mention, outside the teachers' control. Not the least among these, and perhaps less obvious to outside observers, is the support of fellow practitioners. In many cases, a child's learning requires the support of others besides just the classroom teacher. – david reigel b.You can't pick your students upon whom your salary might depend. Those in favor of merit pay often use the private sector as a comparison point, saying essentially that most people are paid by how hard they work or how many cases they win or how much they sell. And all that's true. But a salesman isn't forced to spend his time on customers who clearly don't want to buy his products. Lawyers don't typically take cases they can't win. – David Reigel
3dd87dc7-2019-04-18T17:23:11Z-00002-000	So basically you are talking about putting them in detention. This is the standard procedure for dealing with this problem today, however over 70% of kids admit to being bullied during their education! (1) Calling it prison and separating them from their classmates does nothing more then serve to make them bitter. A more involved manner of approaching this problem is necessary if we want to teach them how to behave. "There has to be someone in there to talk to the bullies one by one and tell them about how what they did was wrong. " This statement is flawed in that the kids know what they did was wrong. The rules are always established in school, the problem is that they choose to break the rules. Talking to them and telling them "what they did was wrong" does nothing more than confirm what they know. There must be a more active involvement in the lesson you are trying to teach them if you want to make sure they actually learn. (1)http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
f37e79be-2019-04-18T15:05:52Z-00002-000	'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned. CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that. ' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do play violent sports when it doesnt help them but why is violent sports in the curriculum. answer that. ' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist. But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.
f37e79be-2019-04-18T15:05:52Z-00007-000	No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them, we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids. I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life. Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE. although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement
ee865dc8-2019-04-18T12:36:05Z-00001-000	to truthfully say how many people do their homework after memorizing and studying hard on the topic. What we actually do is search the internet or take help from elders. So no point in doing homework
a800855d-2019-04-18T15:37:32Z-00000-000	Before I forfeit this round, let me explain to you why I should be voted instead of con. I know that johnjohn12 is actually online right now and is just chickening out simply because he/she cannot argue back. Perhaps if you were prepared and knew that your opponent was this intelligent, perhaps you would not have backed out and not debated with me. Like I said before, you have the following errors preventing you from winning this debate even if you made rebuttals: -Too short of an argument that is also too vague -Does not take a stance or any position; simply remains neutral -Lacks thesis, arguments, introduction, etc. -Topic is too general and pro is unclear of what to say -Policy was not specified as a ban or prevention law With that said, should you have fixed or prevented these errors, you would have won. But because you have made these errors and forfeited each round after that due to fear of loss of debate, you are going to lose this debate whether you like it or not. You have a 0% chance of winning, while I have a 100% chance of winning, even if I am offending you and pointing out your debating flaws. A least I have provided a thesis, stance, arguments, rebuttals, logic and reasoning, conduct, and good spelling/grammar, while opponent failed to provide any of that.
21d6875b-2019-04-18T16:29:45Z-00003-000	Why is it today it is an abusive act while not that long ago you could of been whacked across the head very easily and that was the least they could do. Kids now a days think that it is OK to talk back and disrespect there elders or parents. That is why are society is so corrupt. Second Point:- There is a difference. There is a clear difference between clearly abusing your child and disciplining them. Discipline should involve a punishment backed by love, not an action taken out of anger. If you are hitting a child out of anger you are not disciplining them. Children do not learn from things like time outs, because there is nothing to associate to with misbehavior. Corporal punishment offers a quick stimulus that helps the developing brain associate misbehavior with pain. I was spanked as a child, not abused, spanked. I'm am thankful every time I think about it that my parents disciplined me properly. It has made me know how to act in public. Whenever we would be in a restaurant as kids, there would be screaming children all around, and my brother and I would be the ones sitting at the table eating our food. Again, I will clarify. Corporal punishment is done out of love and is solely for discipline of misbehavior. Child abuse is an act of aggression done out of anger meant to actually harm the child. There is a difference.
21d6875b-2019-04-18T16:29:45Z-00001-000	Spanking Has Its Place I believe many would argue that spanking a child is a form of corporal punishment and it should be regarded as child abuse, but there is also a whole other group that supports spankings and they say it works. I've tried to use spanking with my child and I found it didn't work and I didn't prefer that method, but I don't see it as child abuse either. Of course, when parents over do it, or spank particularly hard, or hit children in inappropriate ways, then of course it is child abuse.
76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00003-000	Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com...
3efeb24c-2019-04-18T19:45:47Z-00003-000	Alright, I will be starting with point 1, moving to point 2, and then covering dropped arguments by my opponents. __________________________________________________________________________ Point 1: My opponent offers 4 different planks one of which has a paragraph of justification behind it. Thus I will be focusing on each sub point. 1a. "Pharmaceutical patents limit who is able to produce a drug." This is entirely true but let me expand on this a little bit. Pharmaceutical patents do not only limit who can produce the drug but through limiting who can produce the drug pharmaceutical patents dictate how much the drug is put on the market for. This of course is the fundamental problem seen in Sub-S right now, prices that are too high for the common Sub-Saharan citizen to purchase. (Keep in mind some of those citizens make less than 2 dollars per week.) 1b. Yes and no. The government could violate the patent by producing the drug, this is true. However the government could also violate the patent by making it null and then allowing another company to produce the drug. 1c. "The government cannot, should not, and will not produce drugs." This is false. Governments quite clearly can produce goods, while the United States government is not the best example because it is primarily a capitalist nation it still has nationalized some things. For instance in the United States some transportation is produced solely by the government. Furthermore education to an extent has been nationalized by the government. While the private sector does produce a vast amount of the GPA in the country government activities non-the-less do account for 12.4% of the GPA. My point is this, the United States government has the ability to produce, it can produce medicine. However we are not just talking about the United States here, we are talking about governments in general. And other governments most certainly do produce medicine. Look at parts of Europe and Cuba, a country who's number one industry is medical tourism nationalized by the government. Next my opponent states that if the government hired a contractor that wasn't the patent holder to produce the medicine then it would be the contractor and not the government doing the violating. This is clearly fallacious, if the government did do this then the government would null the patent before the company created the product. If the government did not do this then the company would be violating federal law, and the government would be forced to act accordingly. Thus the government can hire a contractor while simultaneously violating a pharmaceutical patent, itself. Finally my opponent states that it is not the governments job to produce, it is the governments job to govern. I contest his theory, I believe instead that it is the governments job to solve national or global problems in a coordinated manner. If this means saving 900,000 people from certain death each and every year, so be it. So a brief recap is in order. The government can produce drugs, the government should produce drugs in order to save lives. We are talking about every government in existence not just the United States. Even if those governments hire contractors to produce the drugs the government still must be the one to violate the patent in some way, whether this means nulling it or simply making an exception for said company. 1d. Cross apply 1a, 1b, and 1c, those three cover this point very nicely. In fact, just reread the paragraph before this one, it covers the points. ______________________________________________________________________ Point 2: My opponent once again offers 4 sub points, I will be focusing on each of them in turn. I will be showing how my opponent is going to require a substantial amount of proof to back up his opinions. 2a. "It is unfair to the Pharmaceutical company for the government to violate their patent." Is it really? Lets look once again to my example. Right now the pharmaceutical companies producing Malaria drugs are making a hypothetical x amount of money. Those same companies are not selling to Sub-Saharan Africa thus the plan is this. Governments violate the patents allowing the governments to produce those drugs at a lower cost and distribute them potentially free. Thus at the end of the day when the Sub-Saharan Africans have the drugs and 900,000 of them are no longer dieing of Malaria the companies are still going to be making x amount of money. The fact that the government violated the patent and produced drugs for a population that the companies weren't producing for in the first place has 0 affect on the products. However I cannot stand to simply rebut this point, I must also turn it. What is even more unfair than the potential harm to pharmaceutical countries that my opponent is attempting to prove is the harm done to 900,000 people each year who were born by no choice of their own into the poorest region of the world. These people have just as much right to live as anyone who is reading this debate yet my opponent is more interested in supporting those already living with a high quality of life. Placing monetary value above the value of life is far more unfair than any injustice that could happen to a pharmaceutical company. Making an extra couple dollars for your already bulging piggy bank is not worth the death of 900,000 annually. 2b. "The government and the Pharmaceutical company can come to a mutual agreement, whereby they can nullify the patent or a special exception can be made for the government." I agree that this is a fundamentally good idea. This does not change the fact however that not every pharmaceutical company out there is going to go for this. My opponent is going to have to prove in his next round that every pharmaceutical company would be completely fine with having their patent infringed upon at no benefit to themselves. Like my opponent said in his last round, "Helping people out is not a major incentive for a pharmaceutical company to do research." Furthermore even if my opponent can somehow prove that these companies are fine with patent infringement this does not nullify my case, let's examine 2c. 2c. "If the patent is first nullified or a special exception is made for the government, then the government would no longer be able to violate the patent." This is completely untrue. A nullification or special exception to an already standing patent is a violation of it. This would be like me telling everyone that they could not touch me, and then at a later date stating that my girlfriend can touch me. I violated the original ruling when I changed it. The same is true here, to change the patent in someway that differs at any point of contradiction from the original patent is a violation of the original patent. Furthermore if the companies do outright say no OR yes to the patent violation my case will still stand. As it is still a just cause to save the 900,000 lives in face of profit. Thus the resolution is still proved true. This is simply two scenarios that are just. For instance if a bully was beating me up a just response would be to fight back, but a better response would be to run away and get a police officer. They are both JUST responses, one just happens to be better. The same is true here, both cases are JUST responses to the deaths of 900,000 people, one just happens to be better. 2d. Cross apply every point above. _________________________________________________________________________ Finally lets examine the things my opponent has dropped. -He concedes that Sub-S needs the Malaria drugs. -He concedes that utilitarianism and life over profit are the highest values in this round. -He concedes my resolutional analysis. With that I can see nothing but a Pro vote at this point in time.
8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00002-000	Alright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...
8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00003-000	You did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.
ecee6678-2019-04-18T18:45:08Z-00002-000	== Note to Voters ==As agreed by both the debaters in comments before R4, we reduced the debate to 4 rounds. Kindly consider this as the final round for the purpose of casting your valuable vote. == Rebuttals ==I modified tags to aid clarity. However, I kept the structure of the debate largely intact. I also clubbed together highly recursive arguments posted by Pro. I am sure readers will be able to see that I addressed each point raised till now. Debating within limits is skill: Pro conceded that debating within limits is key part of 'debating skills'. Pro further admits that debate is a inherently fair as a contest. Apart from arguments there are several ingredients of debating skill. Organizing arguments into a compelling narration Elucidation and clarity in verbal debate Formatting to ease readability in a written debate Debating within debate limits This does not mean arguments are not important for debates. As long as the debaters are well matched in terms of debating skills, the result is decided by the arguments only. The debaters in our discussion are well matched as that was one of the starting assumptions. Debate is a fair contest, which is ultimately decided by arguments. Debate is definitely not broken on terms of argumentation. Abusive AID: Pro admits that my method of dealing with increases abusive AID, is correct in terms of competitiveness. However he fails to understand that it increases argument quality also, as it forces the sides to do proper judgement to the key points. Just because you cannot use every arguement in every case does not mean debate is broken in terms of argumentation. Undue advantage: Here also Pro talks about fairness. In the only example presented by Pro, we have seen that CiRrk who was under severe inflationary pressure while debating my opponent, managed to argue within words limit. The debate was finally judged on the basis of arguments quality, and he won comfortably. Pro accuses I am involving judges. But judges are always involved! It is rare that debaters reach conclusion on theie own. SID: Pro misunderstood my argument and dropped it by claiming a red herring. A hook shot is a technique which can be used by batsmen only when the opponent (bowler) uses a particular aggressive technique. Similarly certain combinations of argument cannot be used in a particular situation or in a particular way. Cricket is not broken in terms of shots - even though you cannot play any shot any time. Similarly debate is also not broken just because certain arguments become unfeasable. AID: Failure to anticipate: I said, AID can be intercepted in most cases. My opponent also dropped the example in which the instigator has successfully intercepted AID. I did not say that AID can be intercepted in all cases. I explained how debaters can address AID if they failed to intercept it. Limits argument: I have already explained why argument selection does not lead to debate being broken. AID within single argument: If you are up against a limit, and you have a single argument and you can always rephrase your arguments. It is question of skill, not arguments. Small AID pushing debate over limits: I had given example of CiRrk's argument, as to how he managed comfortably avoid inflation while winning the debate in the process. Pro dropped it completely. Difficulty Proving AID: There is no such thing as 'unclear AID'. If AID is not clear, it is the task of debater to limit the arguments. If he appeals in such cases, he will end up losing. Meta Arguments Series: Pro acknowledges his arguments were recursive. I combined meta arguments and meta-meta arguments together. Since unclear AID do not exist, my arguments stand extended. It was way to clear from begining that this debate is symmetrical in burden. If a debater inflates his own arguments, as my opponent demonstrated he could have done, he would lose. That proves nothing. My opponent dropped the paradoxical nature of his arguments. In unsymmetrical AID, the offender is tasked with reducing his arguments. He is still free to choose his arguments. It does not break the debate. The victim does not have to debate AID. He just has to point it out. Clear AID is by definition clear. == Conclusion ==My opponent conceded that debate is a fair contest. He also admitted that limits are needed in the debate. I have shown that debates are still largly decided by arguments. That is a sufficient to negate the resolution. While future of humanity is important, his argument about nukes is still irrelevent to this debate. He also admits it consists of empty speculation. I don't have to address this. Discerning voters will note that he had introduced this argument as an example of linguistic inflation appended to debate. Unfortunately for him, his nuke arguments went bust, again demonstrating it is possible to manage inflation. I would like to thank Sieben for this engrossing debate. This debate itself is a small testimony to the fact that debate is not a broken form of argumentation. This is one of the many reasons why voters should.
114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00006-000	In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence " Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live..." According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.
114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00007-000	Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live, and to families where a family member is unable to choose death due to a lack of comprehension that they are even alive. Why is it humane to euthanize a pet that is suffering yet humans are required by law to suffer til they die.
19d26d69-2019-04-18T19:45:40Z-00001-000	Regardless of my opponent's intentions, I must debate what the resolution calls for. It is not my duty to infer what PRO is trying to debate. All I must do as a CON is disprove anything within the resolution. Thus, my argument still stands and you must vote CON. "And since my intentions were not to debate the health risks and what not i am not wasting my time with this debate. thanks you, liberal scum." I find that extremely rude and irrelevent. Just because he can not win a debate and I deal total pwnage on him does not mean he should forfeit this whole debate. I urge him to try to defend his beliefs and at least try to suceed rather than resorting to childish name calling. Thanks for an easy win, Chevy.
2d207525-2019-04-18T19:36:31Z-00003-000	~Counterarguments~ 1. Stemming from my argument from Round 1, it's evident that I am arguing in favor of euthanasia by voluntary consent, and not euthanasia by involuntary consent (at least not in this specific debate). My apologies if this was unclear from just reading the resolution. Let's assume doctors do get paid for voluntary euthanasia, and in this case got paid a LOT for it. If this were to be a viable problem in the future due to fears of corruption, then the solution will be simply to not pay them for euthanasia procedures. With voluntary euthanasia, there could be legal documents or any other certified form of verification, perhaps like an audience of witnesses, of which before the patient will state that they are allowing their physician to perform the euthanasia procedure. The medical conditions of the patient should be reviewed by the hospital's panel of doctors, and a consensus on whether or not they should be allowed euthanasia can be reached. This will be to help prevent any corruption on the doctor's part, or someone else influencing from a third party. There are always scenarios in which we can think of where greed and malice trick the system, of course. However, this is true of many things in life right now. Undoubtedly there are many corrupt lawyers, police officers, businesses, and other people in high positions of influence. No system is perfect due to the nature of man, yet this doesn't translate into an argument against euthanasia. Lawyers are supposed to help the people, and police offers are supposed to protect society from dangerous individuals. There are many of each respective fields that are corrupt, but that does not mean we should stop both careers. Unless you can show how euthanasia will lead to great numbers of "falsely euthanasized patients", your argument fails. 2. I think it would be safe for me to say your argument commits the slippery slop fallacy. You stated that allowing euthanasia to be legal would entail in the future for laws to interpret it into something corrupt, something that will "control or manipulation against its people". However, you haven't stated what contingencies will lead to this. Your example of the Bush administration is a good example of a corrupt policy being CALLED OUT. Many people have discovered it, and rightfully damned it as unconstitutional and unjust. The famous scandal of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse lead to soldiers being prosecuted. In this case, the new "interpretation" of Torture under the Bush administration was rightly vilified.
aa884897-2019-04-18T16:45:26Z-00005-000	Thanks, Guidestone! I can definitely sympathize with being pressed for time. I will use this speech to address Con's arguments. Con's sentences shall be in italics, mine shall be in regular script.REBUTTING CON"The first amendment states...states nothing about separation."On face, this remark may appear true, but on a closer reading, I think we can see that it doesn't hold much water. Separation indicates that things are distant or apart. The first amendment bans Congress from "establishing" a religion or religions in the U.S. Clearly, this prohibition forces a distance between the state and the church. As my earlier evidence has illustrated, this separation has been further emphasized by a string of Supreme Court rulings affirming, and in some cases enlargening, the gap between the state and the church.Thus, while not literally stated, the first amendment does intimate at a separation of church and state."The term 'comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote.'"The actual text of that letter reads as follows: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [1] As one of our foremost Founding Fathers and drafter of the Declaration of Independance [2], Jefferson has unique insight into the intent behind the laws of our Constitution. He believed, as evidenced in this letter, that faith was a personal matter, and not one in which the state ought to become embroiled. That, were the state to promote certain religions over others, it would infringe on individuals rights to have, practice, and share their own beliefs. Quite simply, Jefferson did believe that the First Amendment intended to, and did, create a separation between church and state."The Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate."Arguably, this is inaccurate. The Founding Father undoubtedly thought faith mattered, but they (by and large) never wanted the government to morph into a theocracy, supporting a specific religion or religions over others. They did want some distance to be maintained. As I said about Jefferson: they believed "that faith was a personal matter, and not one in which the state ought to become embroiled."The quote from Adams that Con references supports my view. Adams writes that a government must be informed by religious and moral people, not that a government itself should be the mouthpiece of religion. A government can be run by a devout Christian, without supporting the Christian faith or codifying that faith into law. Adams wants people to have personal faiths and moral standards, but he does not say that he wants the government to be an engine of religion or for the government to establish one faith over others. That is a key point to make here.OFF-CASE OVERVIEWCon's whole argument is based on the intent of the first amendment. But intent is largely irrelevant to this debate. Let me use the following example to illustrate my point:I pass a law saying that "No vehicles may ride in the park." My intent was to ban cars from driving in the park. Instead, police and the courts decide that bicycles and babystrollers are "vehicles" and so order them out of the park. What happened was very different from what I intended to do. In other words, the intent of X is not a predictor of what X actually does in the status quo.The resolution posits: "there is" separation of church and state in the U.S. It does NOT ask "did they intend for there to be" separation of church and state. Therefore, what the Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant. Rather, we must focus exclusively on what is currently going on in the status quo. Therefore, we can dismiss Con's arguments as extratopical right off the bat.SUMMARY The intent of the First Amendment is disputable. I believe that it did intend to foster a separation between church and state, and have provided reasoning as to why this is plausible. Even if you buy into Con's interpretation of the intent, it's clear that intent is irrelevant in this debate. Thus, I affirm the resolution. Con has the floor.
1c82900b-2019-04-18T11:45:04Z-00001-000	I strongly believe that weed should be fully legal and sold in stores like any other plant. Both the government and the people could gain from having this plant legal and it makes no sense that its a criminal offence for having it.
8e5ea08-2019-04-18T15:02:02Z-00003-000	Thank you for accepting. The death penalty is something I am very against. The death penalty is the lethal injection of someone who is found guilty of a crime, and I say that it is entirely medieval and unnecessary. I will put it to you, voters and opponent, in a simple way. When you decide to take the life of another human being, you are making the executive decision to not allow them to live any longer. For good reason, this is illegal. Morally, we should not be allowed to decide if anyone other than ourselves deserves to live any longer. In a state where the death penalty is legal, a jury is placed into that executive position. They decide on whether the defendant should live or die, should they be found guilty. They are put into a murderous mentality that can be easily corrupted. While a jury is the most logical choice in a democracy, their beliefs can stand in the way. Attorneys may not even have an influence on some, and therefore the death penalty is subject to bias. Another argument is the fact that it is not necessary. If I were to murder someone, turn myself in, and plead guilty, I would most likely get 25 to life. This is no joke, and it prevents me from being a danger to anyone in society. So why do we need to kill anyone? No one wants to die, and therefore will appeal the decision. An appeal will result in astronomical legal fees for the state and the defendant, lethal injection costs the state money, etc. This is pointless spending. A murderer, rapist, etc. who is found guilty is sentenced to prison for long periods of time, eliminating danger. Therefore, I ask my opponent this. What is the point of taking someone's life? Revenge? Power? There is no logical answer to this question. Lastly, from a moral standpoint, it does not undo the crime. It does not bring a murder victim back to life, it does not take the trauma away from a rape victim. While this is sad, it is true. It does not solve anything, and only provides false closure. In conclusion, the death penalty is a waste of resources and time. $2.3 million is spent per year on the death penalty, with the possibility of the defendant being innocent. I look forward to hearing your arguments. Thank you.
337d5b0b-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00002-000	I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.
961ba94a-2019-04-18T15:54:06Z-00003-000	"Yes in the USA" Argument: 1. SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years. 2. SAT's are not expensive at all, and only cost 7$ per student. 3. SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material. 4. SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer etc. 5. SAT's show what level a student is at. 6. SAT's strengthen test taking skills for young ones. I am looking forward to your rebuttals. Resources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org... http://teaching.about.com... http://www.brighthubeducation.com...
961ba94a-2019-04-18T15:54:06Z-00004-000	I accept your proposition of debate, and will be arguing in the side of Standardized Testing should be banned in schools. Are we using the U.S.A. as a medium for this debate? - Mac
88772ef0-2019-04-18T12:23:43Z-00003-000	It is often said “why is it someone is old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to drink alcohol”? This is often used as an argument to support lowering the drinking age. I agree with the original premise of the statement but to the exact opposite conclusion. Rather than lowering the drinking age we should raise the voting age. As a matter of fact, dying for your country is a significantly larger responsibility than drinking alcohol. First of all, a lot of people sign up right out of high school. That doesn’t give them enough time to experience adult civilian life. SO when they do get out they have trouble adjusting as they have never experienced it before. [1] While much of that is due to PTSD, it is exacerbated by a lack of real world experience they can fall back on as many are unable to find jobs. Raising the enlistment age would allow them to gain valuable life experience to make them better informed about the world, which is an important thing to have before joining the military. It would also allow them to gained experience for jobs in the civilian world before they enlist, that way they would have an easier time finding a job when they get out.One other aspect of my argument is that the brain does not finish developing until the mid-20s. [2] Waiting until later when they are mentally more mature would allow them to make more informed decisions and not sign up compulsively (which is what recruiters often count on). They may sign up on the promise of cheaper college tuition rather than truly believing in the cause as well as manipulating them in other ways, such as claiming it will make it easier for them to find a job when they get out which as mentioned above, is simply not true. [3] Would you prefer someone who is impulsive or someone who is able to make well informed decision in the military?I thank my opponent for accepting and look forward to their arguments.Sources:1 http://abc7.com...2 https://www.sciencedaily.com...3 https://www.thebalance.com...
b5591233-2019-04-18T12:26:09Z-00002-000	We should also address the morality of it. If prostitution is legalized, more and more young girls will have access to, for example, brothels, and use their bodies to get money from older men. The idea that they are the ones who give to men and get paid for it may appeal to younger audiences and cause an increase of prostitutes. What goes along with this is self-esteem issues. These young girls will begin to believe that their only potential is through sex and the better it is, the more they will get paid. This mentality is damaging.
ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00004-000	People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.
ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00007-000	I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.
12120473-2019-04-18T19:39:09Z-00002-000	I do believe that uniforms are a good idea up until eighth grade. Because kids change so much during that period of time, and it helps them emotionally if they don't have to deal with mockery and teasing if they dress differently. However during High school and College people are starting to figure out who they are and by putting them in uniforms you are suppressing any creativity as far as clothing. In some peoples lives their clothing is one of their only ways to let out their inner feelings and so if you force them to wear matching uniforms it takes away freedom of expression. One reason you say uniforms are good because then you dont have to worry about buying costly clothing. Well one solution to that is shop at local second hand stores. If you go to second hand stores regularly and search around there are often adorable clothes that have barely been worn, and even top designer brands for $5.oo instead of hundreds of dollars.
dbb0ca8a-2019-04-18T19:21:17Z-00000-000	I know that my opponent takes this debate very seriosly, so i this should not be seen badly from her part... the only thing i will say, as my opponent has the right to a fair round and debate, is that the Palestinian conflict is based on history... we are now in the present...
dbb0ca8a-2019-04-18T19:21:17Z-00001-000	Before i continue with my argumentative response, i would like to ask where my opponent is from... To continue, when, this delegate reads a lot of " technically, technically, technically" yes sure technically, but that doesn't support anything, it is just stating that technically Palestine should have there own land, sure technically could my opponent please provide proof that Palestine still exists although it isn't recognized by 2 Arab countries and little terrorist organizations. My opponent, states that Hamas, will be happy when Israel gives them the land back, in 2005 Israel removed 7,000 Israelis by force from the Gaza Strip so that Hamas could stop shooting the rockets. The day it was given back, and the ceasefire was signed, Hamas continued shooting rockets over the boarder. sorry for my short response as i am in the process of a move and have very little time, thank you and i hope my opponent understands
dbb0ca8a-2019-04-18T19:21:17Z-00002-000	Pro beings Round 2 by indicating that if we were to give back land which belonged to former inhabitants throughout history, the whole world would be split up into tiny countries and historical states. While there is (a tiny bit of) merit to this claim, what Pro has failed to recognize is that Palestine STILL EXISTS according to international law. You cannot acquire new territories by war, so the land that the English occupied during WWII and then "gave" to Israel still technically belongs to the Palestinians. In this debate, nobody is arguing that every bit of land be returned to "former inhabitants," but rather that Israel stops occupying the land that was taken from the Palestinians thereby also stopping the violent conflict and finally putting a somewhat peaceful end to the years-old issue that has cost the middle east thousands upon thousands of lives. This would dramatically increase international relations and perhaps even address the issue of technological warfare and terrorism somewhat in the region. Next Pro argues, "My opponent states that it technically belongs to Palestine, well technically wont cut it, it does or it doesn't, because technically, the Basque region in Spain also Belngs to the Basques." Yes, it does. What's your point, Pro? All you have done is give an example of an autonomous community in Spain; this country is a historical region with its own laws, culture, etc. I think Pro-Palestine supporters would be just fine with Palestine (the area of/surrounding the Gaza Strip) having its own territory with its own government, societal structure, etc. In regard to Hamas, my opponent was quick to point out all of the ways that the Palestinians have fought back against Israel and refers to my ignoring this as a joke. I think the real joke here is how my opponent fails to acknowledge that this type of counter-terrorism is a defensive one; Israel struck first. Nobody is arguing that the Palestinians are completely innocent. I think it's common knowledge that both peoples have perhaps immorally used massive amounts of violence against one another. The only argument here can be justification, and since Israel intentionally, unlawfully and unprovokedly attacked Palestine as the instigator (and continues to do so), it can be said that the Palestinian response is indeed justified. Pro asks, "What relevance does the torture and the human rights violations have with the denial of the state of Israel?" Well first of all, advocating for the existence of a Palestinian state does NOT equate arguing against the state of Israel. In fact what I said was to leave the final 20 percent of original Palestinian land to the Palestinians, and allow Israel to occupy the other 80 percent. Second, the relevance here is acknowledging the long-term effects of the on-going conflict and how they have impacted the people of Israel/Palestine, the Middle East, and international relations in general. Additionally, it points to the undeniable fact that Israel "struck first" therefore justifying any acts of violence Palestinians may have implored in defense. Finally my opponent acknowledges the fact that Palestine doesn't officially exist, because their application to join the UN was denied. This proves nothing other than the fact that the UN continues to make more mistakes. Of course the UN wouldn't allow them to join their ranks - they're the ones who obliterated Palestine (unlawfully) in the first place. The UN's acknowledgment here is irrelevant, as Pro has not explained why the UN should act as the be-all and end-all to every international decision, especially since the UN is a flawed entity who is responsible for this conflict to begin with.
3bbff083-2019-04-18T19:52:50Z-00001-000	Thank you for joining this debate, First I will rebutt my opponents points and then move on to my own. My opponent stated that "Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports." Swimming is an event that you can compete against others, when your swimming against someone else you are competing against them. You are competing against yourself and you are competing with the other teams as well. Second "I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question." I also am on a swim team and I know that to win a swimming championships you need the best times, so you are always competing against yourself but you are also competing against others as well. Third "Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations." By what you described speed skateboarding as yes it would be considered a sport, because you are competing against another person right? Then overall speed skateboarding is like nascar. Also golf and track are sports to because not only does the whole world consider them they both are competitions. In the PGA tours it is all about golf players COMPETING against each other so it is a sport, and for track runners we have a whole olympic event for this plus you are competing against other nations making it a sport. Thank you,
8d7d1a55-2019-04-18T12:16:57Z-00005-000	I will reiterate my comment: that, this debate is geared towards the demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use. All my previous arguments, in turn are yet to be addressed, and doing so is a prerequisite to this debate. As, disregarding contributed arguments is bigoted, insolent, arrogant and impudent (each), and thus this would no longer be considered a DEBATE. as in a debate, the winner doesn't win based on inconsideration and pompous self-satisfaction, they win only By over-turning the content contributed in one way or another. Regarding the use of Medical Marijuana. Medical marijuana does not conclusively Cure any afflictions. I have never seen any research indicating that, nor any Medical Publications. (I would love for you to provide me with A CREDIBLE publication that is not second, third or fourth hand, But is directly from this Credible source. Please, as it is YOUR argument. ) I personally knew a man who died of Colon + liver cancer who smoked Marijuana routinely. I knew another heavy smoker who died of leukemia. Yet for the terminally ill. Who are we indeed, to deny this pain relief. Yet, despite I have not fought against this right, It should also not be administered or prescribed, as it can cause Great mental strife and physical trauma. As I stated, I have both had my brain bleed, and have had a heart attack. Job creation is not real. As pre-existing establishments would by default inherit this market (example: Monsanto's [actual example, Canada]). The only other people entering this market would be Pre-existing illegal cartels. To remain legal is financially expensive. This is not a job creation sector. IN fact, the rise in Market Distributers would complicate the tax system, and excessive corruption would arise, where a solution had been sought to be installed. Marijuana does in fact have a predisposition to induce psychosis on all Humans. That is a scientific fact. Some people, however, simply, mask their delusion, insolence, selfishness, Perversion and Psychotic symptoms. Ticking-Time-Bombs, Suicides, Crooks, Bigots, Asshols, Sloths, Gluttons, Jackasses. .. That is a fact, that Marijuana does have this disposition to inflict Psychosis, and merely the individual copes uniquely.
ed87bcab-2019-04-18T14:23:38Z-00004-000	Yes, the death penalty is accepted as treatment or actions of taking care of people who commit crimes for good. However, I feel killing them for their crimes is getting them out of their punishment, as the real punishment is to be locked away. Meaning being killed would give them the easy way out of their life punishment.
e7be1f8f-2019-04-18T11:55:37Z-00001-000	I think that humans shued not eat meat do to the fact that they are not meant for it just look at some other sites and come back and tell me your opinyoun.
3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00001-000	Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be "best-care" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create "herd immunity." This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on "herd immunity" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be "free riders" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, "Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school." BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu...
3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00005-000	No I don't think that kids should be poked every time they go to the doctors
6b2816f2-2019-04-18T18:00:17Z-00000-000	Thanks to Logic_on_rails again for a great debate.I would like to apologize to Logic_on_rails and to the readers, I have had some personal issues arise unexpectedly and have not given this debate the preparation and time it deserves.That said, let's address the key points of this debate and my consclusions.Burden of ProofMy Burden of Proof is to prove that greatly reducing the amount of homework given [to High School students] in favor of increasing/setting the length of the school day from 9am to 5 pm does not provide sufficient increased benefit to society or the students to justify making said change.School Day.I maintain that Lengthening the school day will ultimately detract from the extra-curricular activities that Students can participate in, both by directly decreasing the amount of overall time available for those activities and by decreasing the viability of participating in activities.Pro has countered this point, I find that his endeavor to represent a lengthened school day as conducive to extra curricar activity participation and early low-skill job market participation is somewhat falacious. Homework can typically done in a broken or segmented fashion if necessary, playing baseball, rugby, or waiting tables cannot. On this point, merits of lengthening school day. LearningI do not feel compelled to completely counter the Spacing Effect. I will concede that spaced Learning may help some students learn more than alternative learning methods. I do not concede that all homework is conterproductive to spaced learning in school, by extension, I do not concede that spaced learning in school offers significant enough marginal benefit to justify changing the status quo. The Merits of HomeworkHomework is a necessary tool of education. By extension, reductions in Homework will hamper ability to fully develop and achieve the best level of education & should be seen as a failure on the part of the education system.I disagree with Pro's rebuttal: Homework put into school time does not maintain the benefits of homework performed at home. I maintain that addition of either taught hours or "study hall hours" at school again does not offer sufficient benefit to justify changing status quo.Reduction in General MischiefOn Pro's point: Extended. A solid school environment reduces the disproportionately high amount of youth crime for the reasons discussed in R2, such as empirical evidence showing how governments reduce harmful drug use, with education being cited as one of the main factors for smoking’s decline being one. Refer to R2.I have outlined in earlier rounds the merits of extra curriculars to this end. I do not believe that extension of the school day is mutually exclusive with participation in extra curriculars with respect to reduction of mischievious behavior. Again. No obligation to change status quo.Working Mindset / Lack of Agrarian Workfroce CurrentlyOn working mindset point. Extra curricular activities in my definition and as explained above include low-skill labor market jobs.What better way is there to prepare for the working world and mindset than actual participation in the labor force?An agrarianism. This is an international policy debate (theory). The world still relies heavily on agriculture. It is somewhat narrow-minded to assume that it does not. [1] Afghanistan: ½ of the GDP comes from agriculture, not including the illicit opium economy... Bangladesh: Of the 80% of the population that lives in rural areas, 54% work in agriculture... Bhutan: 1/3 of the GDP comes from agriculture, and is a key source of income, employment, and food security for mostBhutanese... India: Some 72% of the India’s 1.1 billion people live in rural areas... Maldives: Fisheries accounts for 8 percent of the country's GDP... Nepal: The country’s challenge is to transform subsistence agriculture based on low-value cereals into a commercialeconomic activity... Pakistan: 40% of the country’s labor force works in agriculture, which accounts for 22% of the GDP... Sri Lanka: Agriculture accounts for only 17% of the GDP, yet 80% of the population lives in rural areas.. Feasibility / Cost I maintain my earlier points on Fasibility and Cost. Pro's rebuttals do not sufficiently disprove my points or the viability of them.The implicit cost of a change argues for the status quo.SummaryI have, in my opinion, fulfilled my burden of proof in that I have offered reasonable evidence and logic to support the maintenance of status quo.The proposed change will create too great a social disruption to justify its imposition.Readers, ask yourselves simply if we can expect the world to alter a years old educational system if the change is not 100% necessary.Thanks again to Logic_ on_rails.[1] http://web.worldbank.org...
6b2816f2-2019-04-18T18:00:17Z-00001-000	My thanks to Bull Diesel for his response. Before going to arguments I’d like to address questions regarding conduct. It is true that I said Con had not attacked my R2 arguments; a prompt for R3 counters, as well as reminding readers that the arguments existed; the attention span of readers can be short. And, it’s not like I didn’t mention the rules! To quote last round: “Granted, the rules themselves disallowed direct rebuttal (!), but it’s important to note these extensions – they are all important points. Con had best rebut them this round lest they be considered dropped by myself and readers.” That’s not unfair conduct. Nevertheless, the reader can decide on this issue. On logistics, if Con decides to attack on the grounds of time (extracurricular activities) then I can recourse to my model to refute such attacks. I do admit that I should have defined logistics, point conceded, but I don’t think my conduct merits the loss of the conduct point. I tried to pre-empt ideas like ‘the government would have to issue a new transport policy to deal with the increased strain during peak hour, which...’, essentially, implementation issues. Just the sort that result in the US using the imperial system of measurement. I digress. Let’s go to arguments. School Day Con doesn’t refute my points here. Last round I pointed out how the poisons less homework and less freetime can’t apply, giving extensive analysis as per my model; I showed how students got more free time assuming the same amount of homework given! Now, as to whether homework is terribly different from schoolwork, that’s a different matter [see below], but Con hasn’t differentiated between the 2 in terms of benefits. I have - I’ve talked about memory retention - the spacing effect, the encoding specificity principle as exemplified by state dependent and context dependent effects, teacher instruction etc. This is all improved by moving things into schooltime, as I’ve stressed this debate. The Merits of Homework Con says “It does not make sense for Pro to argue that we should reduce homework yet imply that homework can still be assigned as schoolwork. This is a waste of resources and is largely impractical.” That’s begging the question... it’s what this debate is about! In R2 Con laid out reasons why homework was beneficial. I countered by noting that homework put into schooltime (hence the longer day) still retained these benefits, while adding some – teacher instruction, stronger student-teacher bonds. I talked about how homework causes familial conflict, as supported by Peter Frost. Con has not discussed how the benefits of homework are greater than the benefits of this homework in school time as ‘schoolwork’ . I have, as aforementioned and detailed last round. Reduction in General Mischief Extended. A solid school environment reduces the disproportionately high amount of youth crime for the reasons discussed in R2, such as empirical evidence showing how governments reduce harmful drug use, with education being cited as one of the main factors for smoking’s decline being one. Refer to R2. Working Mindset / Lack of Agrarian Workfroce Currently Extended. The school day was made 9-3 because societies were agrarian. They are not agrarian currently. Furthermore, instilling the values of work is important. Why isn’t adult society 9-3? Why aren’t extracurricular activities a big part of work life? There are clear reasons, and preparing children for work life is a big part of education. Also, remember, Peter Frost talked about how homework caused familial discord. The proposal reduces this. Feasibility / Cost On this point Con has directly countered me. Let’s get to it. On cost, as said in R2 and uncountered, private tuition costs are debased, public transport is used more effectively and hence a reduction in the total number of buses and trains the government must actually provide. Also, critically, “parents can work for longer. There’s less concern for parents to be at home, supervising their children, if they can trust that their child is safe and productive at school, vs. potentially the converse at home.” – R2, parents working longer hours means more money for the family and a higher standard of living; Also, remember those disproportionately high crime statistics? Parental concern is alleviated by a secure school environment as discussed in R2. Onto Con’s rebuttals now. Remember the positive financial counterarguments mentioned above when weighing for impact. Teacher dissatisfaction due to an increased workload is rather unlikely as per Con’s logic on homework. The additional time doesn’t have to be purely instructional in nature – the teacher may assist students, mark schoolwork etc. It doesn’t have to be a lecture. In essence, teachers are simply marking the schoolwork that would have been assigned as homework at a different hour, and crucially, will take less time to mark at school. Why? Students memory is worse for reasons already discussed, and teacher instruction is missing. That means students will have more problems to discuss, meaning the teacher has to take more time in class addressing problems than would occur if the teacher could pre-emptively address student difficulties in the classroom, through instruction. A net save of time for the teacher, plus the students get better results. The teacher workload may actually be reduced here. On the matter of budget constraints and teachers poor pay, it certainly is an issue in some countries. In countries like Finland, renowned for it’s educational system teachers are paid quite well. In fact “Teaching is rated Finland's "most respected" profession, and primary school teaching its most sought-after career” - http://www.smh.com.au... Teachers pay in the US is fairly poor. See this graph: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... But it’s clear that many countries are capable of increasing their educational budgets or absorbing this cost. I’d like to think that it would be feasible to pay teachers more, although we’ve already discussed the minimal (if even existent) increase in workload above. Readers can decide on the feasibility given political circumstances on an international scale + the benefits mentioned in various other areas. And, for the strongest point in my case... Memory Retention There has been no refutation of the spacing effect, context dependent and state dependent memory effects and how school helps use these effects to increase memory retention. School timetabling forces the spacing effect to occur, vs. massed presentation in the home environment. Better memory retention at school. Physical context is the same with school... and school vs school and the home for homework; better memory retention. The power of these effects has been documented by psychological experiments like the one mentioned in R2. That Con has not responded to the entirety of the memory retention argument is a very, very strong point in favour of the resolution. Summation The points about memory retention, reduction in general mischief, working mindset / agrarian workforce have not been refuted last round, when Con had a clear chance (yes, rules allowed it) to do so. Those are key advantages for the resolution as per R2 and R3 analysis. My model is proven to grant extra free time given the same amount of homework. Con advocates conflicting poisons of less homework and less time. Con failed to differentiate between homework at home vs. in schooltime. I did, citing teacher instruction and other points. On feasibility I can only point to international budgets on education; the US lags behind. However, I have demonstrated how the teacher workload can be reduced. My thanks to Bull_Diesel for an interesting debate on this topic. Readers, please vote based on the arguments presented and not preconceptions. Thanks to all readers and voters.
ed876a53-2019-04-18T14:46:37Z-00000-000	Since it is the last round I won't even try to research definitions or create rules. It won't get that complicated. The death penalty is something that is necessary in this society, though it should be restricted to talentedly malevolent criminals who have proven that prisons cannot hold them. For example, Charles Sobhraj, a murderer once wanted in 11 countries, managed to escape 7 jails with such jests as "starting a fire in the back of a police van". People tried to convince the government to make a special-case death sentence, but they refused. That was before he broke out of jail again, killing 11, wounding 38, and giving 14 severe diarrhea before getting shot during a chase. http://www.cracked.com... Rebuttals (1) An executioneer is not a murderer because he is solely carrying out the law and God's commands. (2) Death Sentences, while legalized, should be constrained. Besides, the lack of a death sentence brings more deaths, as shown in Sobhraj's case. (3) Not a point. But, just to clarify, soldiers are too only carrying out the will of the state, and, besides, the Christian Church declared any killing done during wartime as not sinful, as long as you didn't want to do it.
4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00003-000	Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...
4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000	IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide everyone money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially millions of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do not provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to every person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...
d0dd05ff-2019-04-18T12:59:33Z-00001-000	During the course of this single round, I will be countering one of my opponent's definitions, while still agreeing to participate in the debate. I feel that my opponent's definition of the police failed on a single account, that will hurt the atmosphere of the debate. Simply defining police as: "The people who control (something) by making sure that rules and regulations are being followed." My opponent made no comment about whether or not they would have to go through the same courses and tests police officers do, in order to receive their positions. I strongly doubt that my opponent desired to count an average citizen, who might enforce the law in certain situations as a police officer. Nevertheless, in the spirit of debate, I will argue my position regardless. I proudly accept the government's challenge, and I am looking forward to this debate.
eadca6e-2019-04-18T16:42:01Z-00004-000	The church is not a business, selling faith and hope. Business is commonly defined as a process of exchanging goods or services for economic benefit. While the church is an entity whose basic existence is to give hope. With this, I would like to point out certain points. Point 1: More often than not, personal experiences are only mere over generalizations. Please note that your argument is a personal experience only. It does not hold water in this debate. As the matter was raised, there might be circumstances that you might not have a knowledge of. Point 2: The world's baptized people are mostly comprised of people who do not have the capacity to be large contributors. Based on various sources, we can tell that developing countries have the most recipients of baptism. In a developing country, people often do not enjoy income distribution equality. Sometimes, they cannot even complete the basic three meals per day. Yet, they are baptIzed. Though, not accorded with the same luxuries which the affluent can afford. Not being a contributor in the church does not compromise your right to be baptized. It only compromises the luxuries of a grand baptism. Grand baptism entails having a longer baptism rite, flowers, red carpet and other unnecessary luxuries. Point 3: Giving favor is not included in any process of doing business, rather, a personal relationship. Business often has a rule, " There is no free lunch". Favor seems like having free lunch. We can all see here that favor is not related in any way to doing business. Generally, people in business who do indeed do "favors" are most likely to collect these "favors" in one way or another by some near future. People in business rarely do things without value, even time is gold. Giving favor is basically not expecting any return. So here I say, "favor" is a wrong word to use. Instead, you can always say "give". Point 4: Churches do indeed give their major donors some privileges. There is nothing wrong with it. When a church gives special attention or token to their donors, that is due their desire to encourage more donors. Getting more donors is also a priority of the church. Aside from daily operational expenses, churches basically needs to help and support some of their unfortunate flock. Help and support without finances, seem like talking without doing. Hope must be not only be an impossible dream. To fulfill the dreams, the church must do something, as long as it does not violate morals. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate on this matter.
eadca6e-2019-04-18T16:42:01Z-00001-000	This clearly does not apply to only in america. The vatican holds enough gold to cure world hunger. Christians are not only in America, and whether a church is a mega church or not they still operate on similar principals. Not for profit organizations often hide some secrets... such as world vision's CEO salary is half a million a year. Justified? Not for profit, for profit, what's the difference? all you have to do is make sure your revenue does not exceed expenses in salary, etc and you did not make a profit. But you still operate as a business. I don't think that there is anything wrong with making the spiritual choice to join a church. Some may see value in this and some may not. However you don't have to look to hard to see the reality that church is a form of business selling faith and hope. I do see value in many aspects of the church and I can see how many would take part in these organizations however we must keep an open mind and critical thinking.
eadca6e-2019-04-18T16:42:01Z-00003-000	I don't completely understand how you feel that the church does not provide a service in exchange for a percentage of your income. It is widely accepted that Christians shall give 10% correct? Churches also hire staff to fill positions, such as book keepers etc. The whole structure resembles a Business, From cnn: "Mega churches across the United States are becoming increasingly popular which is not only bringing thousands of worshippers together, but also billions of dollars in profit. From self-help books to CDs and DVDs, mega churches are becoming big money makers for the pastors and ministries they are a part of." How do you not see a parallel. Of course within this organization you are taught how to think and maybe this would sway your thinking form a logical point of view. In the USA churches are a billion dollar industry in fact. And pastors are the CEO's driving this force.
8c866652-2019-04-18T18:27:57Z-00005-000	Terms: We: The United States of America Federal Government Minimum wage: the lowest legal amount per hour businesses are allowed to pay to employees, currently being $7.25 per hour. challenge accepted. Oh yeah, and who has BOP?
98aa9cfa-2019-04-18T12:00:28Z-00001-000	tests are essential for every students.
75863939-2019-04-18T18:29:52Z-00005-000	I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. Definitions:Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case. I will start the rest of my debate in Round 2. Good luck, 1dustpelt, may this debate serve to be an informative one and I hope to learn a lot by researching the topic.
d7a3e42d-2019-04-18T18:55:21Z-00003-000	i'm going to switch it up a little and give the burdon of proof to my opponent. I'd like for them to prove to me that gay marriage is not good and is illegal. I don't want to hear religous arguements and I want studies to back up claims.
bae3dc23-2019-04-18T18:32:47Z-00000-000	As I explained in each round of this debate there was no planned review of the cars, no systematic approach, no directive to stop cars or surveil cars in any pattern whatsoever. I have explained repeatedly that this was not the case; it just did not happen. For whatever reason, each of your responses in this debate focus on this concept and the technology associated with some uniform patterned surveillance, rather than the debate topic of police profiling and the facts that occurred. My focus and the focus of this debate is whether police profiling, which is what occurred in this case, is appropriate. CT obviously ruled that it is not, which is why CT was the second state to pass the law against it, and is as of 2011 considering a stronger version of the bill in the Senate. Economic profiling exists in CT and is exactly what took place here. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within [the police officer's] knowledge" are of a "reasonably trustworthy" basis to "warrant a man of reasonable caution" to believe that an offense has been or is about to be committed (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 [1925]). Probable cause will not be found where the only evidence of criminal activity is an officer's "good information" or "belief" (Aguilar v. Texas, 378U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 [1964]). The point here is that yes the driver was driving a car that had an expired registration, no question, but that the officer ran the plate of the car without probable cause, which is required under the law in the state of CT. An exception would be a controlled methodology in place like a checkpoint or electronic surveillance with a planned uniform procedure in place, but as I explained already this was not the case. in addition, the driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile that he or she is driving; (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 564 [1971]), and an expectation that that privacy will not be interrupted whimsically and without probable cause. A police officer must possess an "articulable" and "reasonable" suspicion that an automobile has violated a state or local traffic law to stop the driver, (Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 [1979]). Furthermore, police officers are entrusted with the powers to conduct investigations, to make arrests, and occasionally to use lethal force in the line of duty, but these powers must be exercised within the parameters authorized by the law. Power exercised outside of these legal parameters transforms law enforcers into lawbreakers.
bae3dc23-2019-04-18T18:32:47Z-00002-000	All the facts of the events that took place were provided. The officer did not pull over every car or every other car or any other pragmatic or random scenario. The officer, when asked, did not give a reason for running the plate or any other explanation to which you speak, like I am pulling over every 15th car in a random registration check and you were unlucky, etc. The officer gave no explanation why she ran the plate, and again, provided no explanation or methodology upon which her pursuit of the vehicle was based. Thus, running the plate, despite the vehicle committing no traffic violation is where the police profiling began. Your statement that "the officer needs to occasionally pull over cars" is exactly the the profiling behavior that concerns me, and obviously concerns other states like CT, where these events took place, to enact police profiling laws. In addition to running amok over the CT profiling law, the officer trampled over the driver's 4th Amendment Rights, guaranteeing the driver to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the driver's 14th Amendment Rights, requiring equal treatment for all citizens under the law. This incident, for me, led to the practice of discrimination based on based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or any other particular identity, and undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled. This, for me, is as clear cut as it gets, because enabling the police to wield a sword with no basis or in an unequal basis, without methodology, without probable cause upon which to act, is a policing power without ethics, without controls and without law, which leads to tyranny and anarchy, and is simply un American... Not to mention the opportunity cost lost of that same officer, had she chosen to perform her duties according to the law, could have spent that same time foiling al crime or responding to a real police matter.
b2e20557-2019-04-18T19:13:35Z-00001-000	PRO makes 2 critically flawed assumptions in his case. First, "Communism; run well, is a much better system than Capitalism." He assumes communism can be run well. History has shown us otherwise with examples like Cuba and Russia. I don't think it's fair to allow PRO to make the assumption that we could have a 'well run' communist system without some fair amount of proof. Second, "It is a system that is based purely on equality." PRO assumes we should actually have equality among people without ever providing a good reason why it should be so. Given that some people are more skilled, more intelligent, or do more work than others, I see no reason we should all be provided with resources equally.
57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00003-000	you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch
937b9d40-2019-04-18T19:44:20Z-00002-000	I'm not a vegetarian, I don't think animals should have rights, and I love meat. That being said, you are still wrong. "Vegetarianism is harmful to the human body, and is wrong." As the Pro of the resolution, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that vegetarianism is harmful to the human body. Let's go down the line by line: "To start off, any dietitian will tell you that meat is an essential part of anyone's diet." The problem with this statement is that it's just…wrong. The American Dietic Association as well as the Dietitians of Canada issued a statement that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." (1) For those of you who don't know, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) is the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with nearly 67,000 members. Approximately 75 % of ADA's members are registered dietitians and about 4 % are dietetic technicians, registered. The remainder of ADA's members include researchers, educators, students, clinical and community dietetics professionals, consultants and food service managers. "People are omnivores we eat BOTH meat, and vegetation." While it is true that we CAN ear both meat and vegetation, it does not mean we HAVE to eat both. "Our bodies weren't made to live without meat." It's not the meat that the human body can't live without; it's the nutrients in the meat. If you can the get the nutrients meat contains from another source, you can live just fine. "It contains a substantial amount of protein which we need to grow (especially us teenagers)." This argument assumes meat is the only source of protein. The American Dietetic Association states that "plant sources of protein alone can provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids if a variety of plant foods are consumed and energy needs are met."(2) Some good examples of Protein that is not found in meet are: 1)BEANS: are protein-rich, and contain a good amount of iron 2)CHICKPEAS: are a helpful source of zinc, folate and protein. They are also very high in dietary fiber and hence a healthy source of carbohydrates for persons with insulin sensitivity or diabetes. Chickpeas are low in fat and most of this is polyunsaturated. (3) (4) 3)LENTILS: Aside from a high level of proteins, lentils also contain dietary fiber, vitamin B1, and minerals. Red (or pink) lentils contain a lower concentration of fiber than green lentils (11% rather than 31%). Health magazine has selected lentils as one of the five healthiest foods. (5) 4)TOFU: is relatively high in protein, about 10.7% for firm tofu and 5.3% for soft "silken" tofu with about 2% and 1% fat respectively as a percentage of weight. Tofu is also low in calories, contains beneficial amounts of iron (especially important for women of child bearing age) and has no cholesterol 5)ALMONDS: One ounce of almonds contains 12 percent of your daily allowance of protein, with no cholesterol; you'll also get 35 percent of your daily allowance of vitamin E, that valuable antioxidant with so many cancer-fighting qualities. And most of the fat in almonds monounsaturated fat, one of the two "good" fats responsible for lowering LDL cholesterol. Of course there's MUCH, MUCH more. I could go on all day about all the different non-meat foods that contain a sufficient amount of protein, but unfortunately, there is an 8k character limit. You have no evidence whatsoever to show how a PROPERLY PLANNED ( as opposed to poorly planned) Vegan diet is harmful to the human body. In fact, I can show you evidence that a Vegan diet is actually healthier for the human body than a diet that includes meat: The US department of agriculture conducted an interesting study which concluded that vegan women may have a higher rate of bone formation than women who eat meat. The science behind it is very interesting. Unlike proteins in plant foods, meat contains proteins that may be rich in sulfur. As we digest animal proteins, the sulfur in them forms acid. A slight, temporary acid overload: called acidosis may result. The body needs a buffer to regain the natural balance of acidity to alkalinity. One buffer is Calcium Phosphate, which the body can borrow from its bones. The body's taking of Calcium phosphate from the bones increases the risk of osteoporosis, it also unhealthily increases the porosity of the bones. Here is the study: http://www.ars.usda.gov... And everything you have said about Animal rights have NOTHING to do with the debate resolution, this is straight up nutrition. Not only is vegetaranism not harmful to the human body, it's arguably healthier than a meat diet. Sources: (1)http://www.adajournal.org... (2)Messina VK, Burke KI (1997). "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets". Journal of the American Dietetic Association 97 (11): 1317-21. (3)www.vegsoc.org, Zinc, retrieved 31 January 2008 (4) www.vegsoc.org, Protein, retrieved 31 January 2008 (5)Raymond, Joan (March 2006). World's Healthiest Foods: Lentils (India). Health Magazine. Your turn.
e8129322-2019-04-18T15:46:19Z-00003-000	The police have an obligation to protect the community but how far? When the police receive military equipment for use against the citizens of the community, they are betraying the trust and disrupting the harmony of their citizens. The civil liberties of every citizen can be taken away without any intervention due to the high capabilities of the militarized police. The police have built a system so as if any or every citizen wishes to express any new ideas or ideals he/she or they will be easily managed, arrested, and dealt with swiftly. The police have been gearing up for war with training, equipment and shoot first mentality.
636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00006-000	I really disagree that parents should be blamed for their child's obesity. It's not like the parents are shoving the food down their child's throats. Kids are soley responsible for what they consume. Kids dont just eat at home. They can eat at school, with their friends at McDonalds, ect. So childrens parents arent the main influences in what thier children eat.
29e66283-2019-04-18T19:27:24Z-00000-000	"Exactly, that is why we should make it legal in every state in this country or at least make it possible for whores to get licenses which they shouldn't have to have a license because it's their own body but I guess its better than nothing. " I myself am for prostitution to be legalized but just not "everywhere" because if such a thing does happen there will be no licensing and "anyone" can choose to sell their bodies, like little kids. I am for making prostitution legal "almost" everywhere by states being able to legalize brothels, which could control who is allowed to sell their body and who is NOT allowed to sell their body such as children. It is better to have a license so it would be easier to tell if a brothel is running illegal prostitution with abducted woman and perhaps children. And if the legal brothels are forced to have regular health checkups, unlike the Netherlands, AIDs will be maintain and controlled from prostitution. "Actually, if prostitution was legal without having to have a license for it then they would not have to have a pimp or manager. " I am guessing you did not comprehend what I wrote before, or I did not make it clearer. Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal "everywhere", but there still happens to be human trafficking going on and woman are still being abused and abducted to be forced in prostitution. It would be much better if they work in legal brothels that do not force them in prostitution and do not abuse them, because legal brothels are state owned. There can only be brothels in a county with a population of 400,000 or less. I would say they should increase this so it can apply to more areas and states should decide to allow brothels to be ran in their counties, as this will "generate revenue" for the state To make my view clear in where I stand in prostitution I will say this. .. . I do think prostitution should be made legal in more states other than Nevada. Prostitution should be made legal but only in specific areas such as legal brothels.
29e66283-2019-04-18T19:27:24Z-00004-000	I am so very happy to challenge that smexi Zealotical ;) "We don't legal penalties upon men and women who choose to do it for no reason. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse against the law?" The most obvious thinking to me for why men and woman are not penalized for having sex with another for no reason is because they are not purchasing the service. In whore houses (yes they exist), called "brothels" it is legal to purchase sexual services because they have a license to do such(I know like wtf lol..... license to be a whore lmfao!). So that is possibly why it is illegal to pay another for sex. The licensing is what is needed to be legalized, just like any other business. "They should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer instead of persist with futile and dangerous prohibition." Well I would agree on that part in itself because there are so many that can spread HIV and are out there selling their bodies while they know they have the virus. The acceptance of whore houses "Everywhere" still would not do much of a positive effect even though the woman are infection free. Since the services there are really expensive, trust me.... lol jk. The prostitutes are actually able to set their own prices which can be a way to make a client refuse to buy any absurdly priced services...... especially since they are fat and ugly as F%!# lol, which would make people seek out cheaper sexual services through illegal prostitution.
29e66283-2019-04-18T19:27:24Z-00005-000	The control of one's own body is the most basic of one's own rights. We don't legal penalties upon men and women who choose to do it for no reason. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse against the law? Prostitution has been present in societies for thousands. Governments should notice that it can't be stopped completely. They should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer instead of persist with futile and dangerous prohibition.
b1f287f3-2019-04-18T11:17:34Z-00007-000	That isn't necessarily true. What if you have super rich celebrity children who didn't work at all for their money? And by the way, Poor work harder than rich in a lot of cases. I believe that the government should take a percentage off of your income. Not a flat amount. I think that we should take a proportional amount of money from the poor and the rich, Even if that means the rich lose more.
9386f26c-2019-04-18T13:35:08Z-00003-000	It is true that everyone dies eventually, but if we use that as our argument we can easily use it to justify other actions. It could rationalize dowry deaths in India, genocide, infant abandonment and countless other barbaric practices. Yes, everyone dies. That does not give us the right to dictate when that happens. Saying we should make euthanasia legal because people would do it anyway is a little like saying we should make drugs legal. People do them anyway. Legalizing drugs would give people a legal and possibly healthier way to do what they want, but the end is the same. Legal or not, euthanasia kills people. Euthanasia is illegal because murder is illegal. I am not comparing people who help a family member seeking physician-assisted-suicide to murderers, but the end result is the same: an innocent person loses his life. The family might feel guilt, but the act is the deliberate killing of someone you love, so guilt might be a natural response. Either way, counseling should certainly be available. It is possible that having a doctor kill your loved one could alleviate the guilt you might feel. I personally would still think about the fact that I consented to and facilitated their death. Technically, the person would be killing himself, taking barbiturates. In that sense, the doctor is not doing anything, but both the doctor and I would have facilitated my loved one’s death. Euthanasia is the taking of a person’s life and should not be legal. No one ever said that every moment of life is good. That wouldn’t be rational. But the life in itself is good. We should respect people, absolutely, but we need to do that by actually respecting who they are and not wanting to end their time on earth. Real compassion will love people no matter their condition and encourage them that they are loved and precious, regardless of the pain or condition they are in. Suffering at the end does not change the good of a person’s whole life. We all suffer sometimes, albeit some far more than others. That suffering does not make us less than we are. If anything, it provides the best opportunities to grow. We can’t live pain-free lives. Suffering is a part of life and one that we have to face. There is the metaphor of the cheese. This view reduces the view of the person to the value of an object. If part of someone’s life is unpleasant we should cut it away. We don’t get to cherry-pick the nice moments in life. Life is life, sometimes good and sometimes bad, but always valuable and to be respected. We should never make people suffer, but we should not kill them either. There are other options. There are choices between the two extremes of physician-assisted suicide and a forced prolonging of painful life. Medicine is meant to heal, and death is not healing. It is true that death will alleviate physical suffering, but the person won’t be alive to appreciate that. In ending their suffering, you end everything else about them. The state has a duty to protect the best interest of the people. Death is never a better scenario than life. Life can be painful and ugly, and sometimes we hate it, but that does not make it bad and it does not make death a better option. If we support euthanasia it is a little like supporting teen suicide. If you’re in a lot of pain and you don’t see a point to living, why not end it? The State arguably has no right to prevent your death, but we don’t often hear people supporting that teenagers go and kill themselves if they feel like it. That is because all problems are temporary (even, in a sense, terminal illnesses) and human life is more valuable than anything else in the world. Our illnesses don’t define us. Even dying and in pain, you are not your suffering. You are a unique human being with dignity that cannot be diminished or taken away. This dignity can, however, be violated. Killing a person violates his dignity. Some people argue that we have no right to force someone to live. The reality is that we have no right to take his life. Economically, it does make sense that ending a sick person’s life saves money. The problem with this money-saving mentality is that we are no longer looking at people as human beings. We start to see them as numbers, costs and liabilities. The overall mentality becomes one of practicality. If the person does not perform a function or directly benefit society, we should get rid of him. As a classic example, getting rid of the sick and elderly was one of the first moves of the Nazi party at the beginning of the Shoah. It can be easy enough for a culture to slip into a mentality of use. This sounds extreme, but is it? When terminal illness is a declaration of a person’s diminished value, logically he would receive second-rate health care, if any. Under this mentality, people are objects, not rational and inherently valuable beings. We can’t see people this way. The idea that people are measured by what they produce is what leads to eugenic policies that seek to eliminate the weak and less-than-perfect. Granted, most individuals and families who want euthanasia are not thinking, “Great, I can get rid of my useless relative and save money.” Most people have good intentions. Unfortunately, a utilitarian outlook is the natural consequence of a mindset based on euthanasia, one that estimates a person’s worth and his quality of life based on accidents of his life, not based on his nature. On the opposite side of the argument, providing treatment can advance medicine, create more jobs, and preserve the greatest resource we have: people. But what about people who are suffering or don’t want to degenerate? It’s a tragedy that people think ending their life is better than living it. Pain does not make us any less human. Often the most inspiring people are ones who overcome the worst suffering (Douglas Mawson, Helen Keller and countless others). People should not have to die to be happy. We all want to be loved. We want to die in the company of people who care about us, happy and with dignity. The people who love us want what is best for us, but death is not better than life. As far as autonomy, death is a decision that we appear to have control over. The reality is that there is a lot in life we have no control over. We don’t choose when we are born or what we look like, what kind of economic standing we are born into or who are family are. We often don’t control when we might lose a job or lose a family member. Death is a decision that most people never make. In a sense, the corresponding event to life (or birth) is death. We don’t choose it, but we make the most of it. Real autonomy is making the choices we can make and exercising our free will. Autonomy does not extend to decisions that we don’t have control over. We can’t and don’t give people everything they want. It is not our duty to give people everything they want. Medical professionals don’t let patients decide everything about their treatment. Most people are not trained in medicine. There are some decisions they cannot make. Not making euthanasia legal does not take away a choice a person had, it simply prevents him from making a choice he never had to begin with. Medical professionals should not let people choose when they die, just as they would not let a patient diagnose himself or prescribe his own treatment. Medicine is not meant to give people what they want. Like setting a broken leg, sometimes treatment is painful. You wouldn’t tell a child, “This is going to hurt for a long time. If you’re not okay with the pain, you can choose whether you want treatment or you want to end the pain.” No. The doctor would tell the child that the treatment is for his own well being and heal him to the best of his abilities. The same logic applies for terminal illnesses. It is not powerful to die. It takes strength to live. To put it bluntly, autonomy in death does not leave the person free and empowered. It leaves him dead.
a6b760ce-2019-04-18T15:07:34Z-00001-000	== Rebuttal == (1) Pro says Chernobyl led to 200,000 deaths. According to recent studies, the actual number is much higher: 985,000 people died. [17] [19] Even if the number is 200,000, that's still a massive impact. The consequence of a nuclear meltdown is an unacceptable risk. (2) Pro says the "overriding message for nuclear" is to "assess what went wrong, and work to make sure it doesn't happen again." The problem is that there's no guarantees it won't happen again. The reality is that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and there's nothing we can do to mitigate that risk entirely. (3) Pro offers evidence of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna as an example of a "deadly dangerous 'fallout' from the Fukushima disaster." The impact of that evidence seems to weigh in my favor, so I'm not gonna spend more time there. (4) Pro suggests that radiation isn't bad for us, because his son eats tons of bananas, but that's simply not what's at stake here. The radiation that comes from nuclear power, from nuclear waste or from a nuclear meltdown, causes death. The radiation used on bananas is calculated to ripen bananas quickly, but it's also calculated to remain at a safe level for consumption. (5) Pro makes an argument about the land affected by a disaster. For example, Pro notes that a bigger chunk of land than Florida was affected by Chernobyl. That's a chunk of land bigger than Florida that can't grow food or can't be used to sustain life. Pro says one day we might -- the key word there is "might" -- have technology to clean up disasters. However, these technologies are untested, and some might -- yes, "might" -- carry even greater risks. There's no way to know. The onus is on Pro, not the rest of us, to demonstrate the safety of these technologies, as well as their effectiveness. Furthermore, note that the technology doesn't exist today, so it's ultimately speculation. Technology that doesn't exist today isn't justification for investing in nuclear today. Finally, clean-up technologies that technology won't guarantee that disasters don't happen -- it just means we can use the land sooner than we otherwise could AFTER the disaster has already happened. (6) Pro makes an argument about the waste from nuclear power. I'm not sure what the argument is. He seems to be suggesting that we store nuclear waste in our backyards, specifically 2 pounds each. Except that number's gonna keep growing as nuclear waste increases. That argument is simply insane and unsustainable. Pro says the casks are safe, but anyone who says nuclear waste is entirely safe simply misunderstands the nature of nuclear waste. Contingencies can't be predicted ahead-of-time, which is why storage is such a big problem. The waste from nuclear power lasts thousands of years. And note: storing that waste effectively not only costs money, but it also poses a serious environmental problem. The Yucca Mountain plan isn't ever going to happen. Pro frames the issue as solely political, but it's more than that; it's the fact that it's so expensive and time-consuming. Waste storage isn't just political (i.e. we don't want waste in our backyards); it's also about the economics. == My Advocacy == Pro seems to have dropped my main arguments. Specifically, Pro drops my argument about the economic costs of nuclear. The costs include building the plants, storing waste, decommissioning plants, securing plants from terrorism, insurance, mining uranium, and then running the plants. Most of these costs must be passed onto taxpayers, because they're too high for private investors to choose nuclear power. I want to emphasize this point: The market prefers other options. That is one of the most important reasons to prefer renewables; they're not only cleaner and safer but also cheaper. Pro also drops my argument about nuclear power's vulnerability to terrorism, the risk of weaponized uranium, and the vulnerability to climate change. Finally, Pro ignores climate change almost entirely, including my argument that renewables are a better solution. Extend all these arguments. There's simply no reason to prefer nuclear over renewables, since renewables are proven clean, safer, and cheaper. They're available and they carry none of the risks associated with nuclear. == Sources == [19] http://www.globalresearch.ca...
83f9b733-2019-04-18T13:54:03Z-00001-000	Like I said it should be beacuse it doesn't affect anyone. I have a friend(male)who was raised by lesbian parents, and he he has become successful. Just beacuse they don't follow the traditional parent role does not make them bad parents just different. So what if the parents encourage their children to be gay, more homosexuality can lead to less overpopulation. Also, your argument against the can fill the void also applies to straight adopted parents. You also claim, that i would support allowing gay parents to sexually abuse their children, beacuse that would not be allowed. Also you claim the purpose of marriage is to have a family, but if a man and a woman who were incapable or didn't want to have a family would you consider them a determine to society. And if the change of definition doesn't interfere with heterosexual marriage than it doesn't affect heterosexuals. Okay fine, now that homosexuals can marry the rest of us have to change the definition of a word, not a big deal. Another thing is the bible refers to a Christian government, according to separation of church and state that is invalid. Also your using the bible in your argument, to prove a point that a group people should be allowed to have sex but not be allowed to marry, therefore sex before marriage. I can't really say why it 'oughtta be done, beacuse I am against it, but if someone wants to burn in hell its not my problem.
fc0d55ae-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00003-000	First of all, cell phones can distract students of any age in class from learning.
f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00004-000	Well yeah, I couldn't rebuttal you without you making a point first. Duh. 1: Yes they do 2: As proven as humanly possible Yes. 3. I would be inclined to agree. 4. Never knew that was a thing, But sure, Why not. 5. They have side effects, What you mean is serious side effects, But I get the point. 6. Well I wouldn't care if they did per se, But sure. So these are all great arguments that people should use vaccines. Where's the evidence that they should be mandatory?
573179be-2019-04-18T16:24:09Z-00002-000	Refutation to your arguments: 1. Not wearing a uniform will let the student express who they want to be, thus increasing their self-esteem. I see what you mean by others who cannot afford uniform, but no one wants to wear them. 2. If school wasn't as boring as it is, then teachers shouldn't have to worry about their students being distracted. If faculty does more to help students become hands-on learners, they wouldn't have to worry about wearing uniform. 3. It won't reduce bullying, if a bully wants to bully a kid, he/she is going to do it, with or without uniform. Everyone that goes to that school is apart of the same school. 4. I see where you're coming from that, but for closed schools, it shouldn't be a problem since you have to go through several security guards standing at the gates. 5. Even if you don't have the latest fashion, no one will make fun of you. I wear age-old clothes to school, and people think I'm stylish. 6. By not wearing school uniforms, the students have more opportunities to express themselves, and boost their imagination. Even by not wearing uniforms, their academic standing will stay the same. But if you implement uniforms on them, they will get bored by not having things to do, or talk about. 7. Wearing uniforms have no real correlation with those statistics
94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00004-000	Prostitution is the oldest profession. It is not exactly the noblest or most favorable occupation but I think that it should be legalized for the sake of making it safer and taxable. One only needs to look back at alcohol prohibition to see the negative implications that the criminalization of prostitution or any other activity of vice can attribute. Because prostitution is criminal, it is controlled by criminals, which gives rise to abuse and human trafficking. If prostitution was mainstreamed, regulated, and had an acceptable quality control, it could be one of the most profitable industries of American economy. Since it is illegal and unregulated, prostitution is extremely risky for all involved parties and criminals are the only people who benefit. Ron Paul once said that if you made heroin legal tomorrow, people wouldn't uncontrollably run out and do heroin. The same is true of prostitution. It wouldn't suddenly become something every girl wants to do as a job and every male indeed will partake. Legalization would reduce communicable disease in this country and increase economic stimulation.
9117c1e6-2019-04-18T19:55:18Z-00000-000	"No one really gives girls a chance because they think they are going to suck." Really. Where is it you aren't being given a chance? Title IX ensures that in high schools (at least the public ones, the vast majority) have at least as many athletic programs (often more) for females as males. In college, much the same occurs. And don't even try telling me WNBA players do not get a chance to practice :D. "See if it was the other way around and guys wouldn't be given a chance you would probably be as pissed off as us girls. " As a matter of fact I am not "given a chance." It has nothing to do with gender, I simply was rejected every time I asked my parents if I could compete in organized sports (notably football). You however are apparently in ice skating, which I presume is your sport of choice. So it IS the other way around, at least in our cases. I'm rather pissed off of course, but mostly about other things. :D "Its not fair that everyone thinks guys can do everything better. We can do everything just as well. And any girl could beat a male in martial arts if they tried." Contradiction. You say "just as well" and then say "any girl could beat a male," implying both equality and superiority at the same paragraph, and providing zero evidence for either. Find me a woman who can fight Fedor Emilianenko to a draw and I'll concede the debate. Fair is notoriously arbitrary, but so far the evidence points toward males doing sports (which are not of course everything) better the majority of the time. "In your last argument you spoke about Marion Jones. If males were caught doing steroids I'm pretty sure that alot more of them would be sent to jail then females." I don't see your point. Males are caught doing steroids, some of them are sent to jail, but mostly the suppliers. Marion Jones is in jail because she plead guilty to perjury, not on steroid charges. I am of course opposed to anti-steroid laws (for either gender) but that is a different debate. The reason more males than females take steroids is because steroids happen to work better with fewer side effects in male bodies. Why? Because they (some of them) are male hormones. Hmm, becoming more male improves sports performance, that's odd :D. "And as for the evidence for soccer and figure skating, its called watching tv! O o my gosh." Every time I have watched the world cup (the only soccer I watch) the quality of play is better on the male end. I don't watch figure skating. In any event, "TV" is not admissible evidence. Show me numbers, show me facts, don't just pretend a certain medium acts like you are right., because TV as it happens only shows what it wants to show, and is rather unscientific. You have provided no evidence through this debate, and the entire history of human evolution (e.g. males evolving to do most of the athletic tasks such as hunting, females evolving in a manner more consistent with having to account for children) makes your claim rather extraordinary and therefore requiring extraordinary evidence. This does not mean it will always stay this way of course... women and men are athletically closer to equality now than they were 100 years ago, and in the future may be more so. Individual women should do whatever they are capable of, and for some of them that may involve the same sports as men. But there is no reason to believe, and plenty of reason not to believe, that men and women collectively are exactly equal in athletic ability.
9117c1e6-2019-04-18T19:55:18Z-00002-000	The fact that some males take steroids is not a factor the adjustment of which will have consequences for our argument. After all, some females take steroids too (see Marion Jones), and the documented differences predate the steroid era. I don't know who gets "humongous muscles" in "two days," so you have an anecdote without even anecdotal evidence, double fallacy :D. Tennis: The last time top pros in tennis for each gender squared off, the male was really really old. Bring whoever ya want for a few matches against Roger Federer, I dare ya :D. swimming: I'm not familiar with the sport, any evidence that males and females of comparable tiers within their respective leagues have swam against one another with the females consistently coming out on top? Ice skating: Now I know that at least in the olympics, those are entirely separate events, so they haven't been compared. And unless you are talking about speed skating or hockey, the sport (figure skating) is entirely subjective in rating players (it relies upon judge's aesthetic opinions rather than achievement of a predetermined objective). "Grace" is not meaningful to me. If you think females are better at x sport in its totality, prove it. I don't know about badminton, but show me one woman who can beat one professional male fighter in any of the martial arts you mention. Just one. Pretty please. And then try and find the averages. All one has to do is watch the quality of play in NBA vs. WNBA to laugh at your basketball claims. Soccer I'm sure is more even, but there is still no evidence that girls would be "much better" than guys at it on the average. There is a trick in debating that I'm sure you'd find useful. It's called providing evidence. If you cannot deduce x from accepted premises, and you cannot get it by induction from evidence, you need not be making an argument about it.
3749d168-2019-04-18T15:18:34Z-00006-000	I accept. My arguing skills may be a lot rusty, since I have debated in like half of a year ago. But anyway, I wish the best of luck to my opponent to this debate topic. I also hope that this topic will not turn out to be a flame war.
1bdb82e-2019-04-18T19:33:32Z-00003-000	To a degree he is correct, this is a major function of the EC, but not the only one. The United States is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is a collection of sovereign states that give up certain aspects of their autonomy to form a larger 'union', or 'Federation'. [1] Therefore, when electing the Head of State for a Federal Republic there is more to consider than regional population. A state needs to be adequately represented in order to benefit from being a member-state of a Federation. The EC ensures that smaller, less populated states receive the same benefits as the larger ones. Without the EC smaller states such as Wyoming or West Virginia would receive even less federal consideration than they do under the current system. Politicians would have little reason to visit the mid-western states, and even less reason to give them the same benefits of union that larger states like New York and California enjoy. " You make the argument that eliminating the EC will hurt smaller states by giving them little attention in the eletion. However as it is, largely Republican or largely Democrat states are not given attention. This is because both candidates know they will win the state if it is largely bias twoards their party, so the other candidate won't campaign there. This leaves several states neglected. Also, as I explained to you in a message, the resolution is not that the EC should be eliminated, but rather, it should be changed. This means that if you change it to a system such as weighted popular vote, smaller states still recieve benefits. RE: "My young opponent claims that the voices of some citizens voting for the losing candidate go unheard (in cases where the winner of the popular vote loses the EC vote). I find a different interpretation to be more accurate. Their voices do not go unheard, rather the voice of the states Does get heard. " This is true, however, by making the EC "winner take all" you are ignoring many of the state's citizens and The states voice is not heard as one, but rather as a majority. This makes all votes for the losing candidate in any particulaar state, worthless, as they do not inffluence the election. RE: "This is not an argument in favor of reforming the EC. This is an argument in favor of conducting the federal census more often. We have the technology to make this more feasible today than we did when the census was instituted in the mid 1800s. " Holding a more recent census would affect the EC and would be a reformation. I think we'll have to agree on this point. RE: "Con is correct in his historical analysis. However, he offers no explanation as to why the election going into the House of Representatives is a bad thing that suggests that our election methods should be reformed. " The election going into the hands of representatives is bad because votes from citizens rarely affect the representatives. As I stated before bribery was used to buy votes and this, I think you'll agree, is bad. So to keep the election a Democratic one, we must find a different way to resolve a tie. RE: "If someone were to look strictly at the popular vote then Con would be correct in this claim. However, as I have discussed above, there are more things to take into consideration. This nation was founded both on the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of separate states. The two branches of congress were created with the same principle as the EC. It apportions some of the representation based on population (House of Representatives) and the rest based on statehood (two votes for each state in the Senate). This gives smaller states like Wyoming the same representational proportion quoted by Con in Congress for the very same reason that the EC takes both measures into consideration - to ensure that the smaller states have some say in the Federal government. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that these states are given a base level of power to make their existence in the federation worthwhile than it would be to say that its citizens exercise more 'power' than others. " Again you say that I am advocating switching to popular vote. This is incorrect. This debate is rather about whether the EC should be changed. There are alternatives to the EC that ensure smaller states have some say in the federal goernment. My final stement is that when I said some citizens have more power than others, I was simply saying that they have more inffluence on THEIR STATE's popular vote, not in the nation as a whole. Thank you JBlake for accepting and I await your response.
10fc577b-2019-04-18T13:19:46Z-00001-000	It is unfortunate to see that my worthy opposition had not posted any response to my arguments almost implying that he/she has nothing to say. Therefore, I have got nothing to refute. Because of this I shall just state some of the possible situations that could arise if the government does indeed give benefits to parents who don't vaccinate their children. Firstly, like I have said in the previous argument, doing so will convey a wrong message telling everyone that it is not worth the effort to take one's child to a hospital or even a clinic and provide a child with his or her basic medical requirements. Which would also imply that it is perfectly fine to put a young one's life at stake. Furthermore, let us think of this, if there were such 'anti-vaxxers' in the times of medical disasters, for example the time when small pox existed, it would still exist, there would still be people suffering from the disease. Death toll would be far more than a already staggering 500 million people. And people who are the reason for this would still be getting benefits from the government. Strictly providing such vaccinations have saved the world a number of times before and can still do so. Providing the world with a vaccine for polio has definitely done it. At this point of time, there are only two countries which are polio-endemic - Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Link: - . http://www.who.int... ) . This is the change that has been brought about by us. Merely 28 years ago, there were 125 countries affected with polio. However, at this time of crisis, when diseases are evolving and getting stronger and fighting us back. it is more important than ever to stay together and fight better, as diseases like MERS, ebola and zika come in our way, we have to spread awareness among people to eradicate them in the same way we eradicated smallpox. And that is where governments come in. They are one of the only ways we can do so, they must do whatever is possible to save the world. However, giving benefits to anti-vaxxers is one of the many ways our progress is being hampered. We have to appreciate the fact that although there are only 2 countries that are still affected by polio and polio alone, failure to eliminate this disease will mean that within ten years, there will be a rise of the disease and there will be more than 200 000 cases every year from all around the world. Moreover, this is not the only disease of concern, there are many more diseases that are to be worried about, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, measles and many more. The only way we can stop them is through vaccinations. And that is why actions must be taken, which includes taking small steps like not giving any benefits to the anti-vaxxers (which is only one of the several. things we must do). In the final round, I shall suggest some ideas regarding what could be done to exterminate such diseases.
e8143261-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00000-000	Thanks for letting me fulfill my position.Here is my stance in this debate."1) It's extremely addictive for some people: If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to Dr. Drew Pinsky who has been working with addicts for decades. It would be malpractice to say that cannabis isn't addictive. Anybody who's experienced it, actually been addicted to it, knows how profound that addiction is.... The difficult thing about marijuana addiction is some people, even though they're addicted can do fine with it for many many years before they start to have difficultly, but eventually the high starts wearing off, people start smoking a lot more to try to get that high back and that's when they descend into difficulties. ...I've been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis. It is extremely addictive...for some people. I think that's where people get confused. It's not very addictive for many people. It's a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction. But for them it is really tough. You only need talk to them, they'll tell you how tough it is. Additionally, that "small subset" Dr. Drew is talking about isn't so small in a big country like America. "Of the 7.3 million persons aged 12 or older classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in 2012, 4.3 million persons had marijuana dependence or abuse." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more legal and available marijuana becomes, the higher those numbers are going to go. 2) This experiment hasn't worked out so well for Amsterdam: Humans being what they are, just about any stupid idea we can come up with has already been tried somewhere else. Amsterdam is the most famous place across the world that has effectively legalized pot. It has even turned into a tourist destination for potheads. Legalizing weed has been a huge success there, right? Actually, not so much... Its citizens are now alarmed that their children are increasingly being exposed to it. Amsterdam today became the first city in the Netherlands to ban students from smoking marijuana at school. The city's mayor Eberhard van der Laan introduced the law after school chiefs complained about pupils turning up to classes high after rolling up outside the grounds. Marijuana is widely available in Holland as, although it is technically illegal, police can't prosecute people for possession of small amounts. But it has also had the unwanted side effect that Dutch children are frequently exposed to the drug in public areas. Additionally, contrary to the claims that legalizing it will reduce crime, in Amsterdam it’s been found that crime is now centering around the coffeehouses where marijuana is sold. …Certainly the outlook for coffee shops is bleak. Among the few policies that the three parties in the new coalition government agree on is the need to reduce their numbers. The governing agreement released last week laid out plans that will force them to become members-only clubs and shut down those shops located near schools. The coalition is also advancing the idea of prohibiting the sale of cannabis to non-Dutch residents, which amounts to a death knell for many coffee shops. ...The circumstances that led to the tolerance policies have changed in the past decade, as large-scale crime around coffee shops and the legal sex trade became more visible. In particular, the absence of legal means for coffee shops to obtain cannabis has highlighted their association with organized crime. But the open-minded instincts that helped foster the policies are also being questioned. And it is not just the far-right opposing coffee shops. The traditional parties of power on the center-right, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal VVD, have also moved against the policies they once promoted. That doesn't exactly sound like a success story, does it? 3) Marijuana is terrible for your mental health: Marijuana may even be WORSE than cigarettes. At least cigarettes don't peel points off of your IQ. A recent Northwestern University study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become. In its own report arguing against marijuana legalization, the American Medical Association said: "Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders." So, there's a good reason most habitual marijuana users come off as stupid. The drug is making them stupider, even when they're not high. You really want your kids on that? 4) Marijuana is terrible for your physical health: How bad is marijuana for you? It's even more toxic than cigarette smoke. Regular users are hit with devastating lung problems as much as 20 years earlier than smokers. Even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility and it has a terrible impact on the babies of women who smoke including "birth defects, mental abnormalities and increased risk of leukemia in children." If your standard is, "Well, it's better for you than Meth or Crack," that's true, but you're deluding yourself if you think pot is anything other than absolutely horrible for your health. 5) The drug decimates many people's lives: Movies portray potheads as harmless, fun-loving people who spend their time giggling and munching Cheetos, but they don't show these people when they're flunking out of school, losing their jobs, frustrated because they can't concentrate or losing the love of their lives because they just don't want to be with a pot smoking loser anymore. Even in the limited number of studies that are out there, the numbers are stark. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. ...Students who use marijuana have lower grades and are less likely to get into college than nonsmokers. They simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize information compared to those who do not use these substances. It's bad enough that we already lose so many Americans to cigarettes, alcoholism, and drunken driving. Do we really want to endorse the loss of millions more potentially productive Americans via Marijuana? Do we move on from there to Crack, Heroin or Meth? Some people would say, “If they want to do it, great, then it's no business of ours.” But, you can also bet that those same people will be complaining about all the junkies and welfare cases that will be created by the policy they endorsed. So, ask yourself a few key questions. Is legalizing Marijuana going to make this a better country or a worse one? Would you want to live in a neighborhood filled with people who regularly smoke marijuana? Would you want your kids regularly smoking pot? Now is the time to think about it because although it's easy to thoughtlessly legalize a drug like marijuana, when things go predictably wrong down the road, it will be a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than people seem to think." [1]Sources:[1] https://calmusa.org...;[2] http://www.celebstoner.com...;(Just to cite a couple of the many examples that this article cited).
6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00000-000	I will now summarize this debate and make a closing statement. Con has presented arguments that are self-contradicting: Should spanking "be banned from everywhere," including children's own homes, or is it "the parents [sic] choice" whether or not to spank their children? I have shown that spanking should not be banned universally, and I have also demonstrated that if parents are allowed to spank their children, it is also their right to choose a school that will do the same in an appropriate manner as well. My opponent also mentions studies that have shown that spanking "causes problems later down the road," but he has failed to present any of the studies in his sources. On the other hand, I have cited sources that show that corporal punishment is very effective, and I have also presented a testimonial from a teacher who was grateful for the ability to apply it in class due to its effective nature. Con has thrown claims around willy-nilly throughout the debate, but has not been able to back up any of them. The one piece of evidence my opponent has presented, i. e. the case of a child who went home to her mother with bruises on her bottom, has been shown to be unconvincing at best. The mother of the child was upset that the school was not implementing corporal punishment correctly, not that the school was enacting corporal punishment. The child was most definitely at fault, and faced a few bruises on her bottom as opposed to something that might appear in her permanent record. If anything, spanking was the correct decision in this case; it just should have been implemented differently, which only shows that supporting corporal punishment is better than abolishing it, as it can then be refined and implemented better. In addition to successfully refuting all of Con's points, I have done the following:-I have shown that spanking is similar in many ways to other forms of punishment that society imposes; to oppose spanking in schools (or in general) would be to argue a much greater point about punishment in general. -I have shown that spanking provides teachers with another tool to keep their classes progressing smoothly. -I have shown that spanking has benefits, largely due to its immediacy and proven ability to keep children from misbehaving. -I have shown that spanking is actually a great alternative to other forms of punishment imposed in schools, in that it does not potentially ruin a child's future. In closing, from looking at the exchange between Con and me, one must conclude that corporal punishment in schools is appropriate if carried out correctly, just like any other form of punishment society must use at various levels of misbehavior, whether the punishment is to send a criminal to prison or even to punish a dog to keep it from becoming unruly. Spanking should not be eliminated from schools everywhere, and if anything, it should become a more widespread practice.
6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00001-000	Thank you for your rebuttal as well as your compliment. You are a very courteous individual--to the voters: please take this into account for the conduct vote. Before I write my argument, I must make a small amendment to my rebuttal that has no bearing on its integrity. I wrote "capital punishment" in the very first paragraph where I meant to write "corporal punishment." If there was any confusion, I apologize. "Spanking in schools has been eleminated [sic] in many states including Iowa where i live. Im [sic] neutral when it comes to spanking by parents, but im [sic] school? I think not." States disagree on many things. I'm glad you live in a state that is in line with your views. If your point is that "the majority says so, and therefore it's right," I encourage you to look at history. People have universally agreed upon things that we would universally disagree with, such as slavery and using tobacco as medicine. Besides that, as shown by the source in my first argument, there are still plenty of states--over a third--that allow corporal punishment in schools. "We teach our kids not to hit, but when we spank them we are hitting their bottoms." I am guessing the implication of this statement is that by spanking children, we are sending a confusing message to our children by doing what we tell them not to, or even being hypocritical. I agree with you in that as a society, we don't want our children to become violent for unjust reasons. However, I disagree that spanking is therefore a bad idea. In fact, that is one reason we spank children--to teach them that violence only leads to more pain, both for the perpetrator and the victim. However, we are in no way sending a confusing message to children or being hypocrites by spanking them; we also teach children not to kill people, and yet the majority of states still enact the death penalty [1]. We also detain people, shoot people, and even send others to be tortured [2] [3] . Granted, these are suspected terrorists and people from foreign countries, but my point still stands: we do not teach our children to be mean to others just because they are from other countries, nor do we teach them to treat people in this manner. I should point out here that even without the points I just made, your argument goes against corporal punishment in general and not specifically corporal punishment in schools. If parents teach their kids not to hit others but spank their children anyway, they are doing the same thing. For your argument to be sound, you would have to be against parents spanking their own children as well. This goes against your first argument, which states that parents should have the choice of whether to spank their children, as well as your second, in which you state that you are neutral on the matter. "While you bring up a good point str chudies[sic] have shown that spanking causes problems later down the road." I wholeheartedly encourage you to show me these studies (I'm guessing that's what you meant) in your next argument, which is your last. I have sources that show that spanking works, too [4] [5]. One study by the APA, in fact, was inconclusive at best [6]. Even with sources, your point is not a strong one; the scientific community still disagrees on many things, and as I have shown, this one is still up inconclusive. Also, keep in mind that our beloved country, the United States, was built from the ground up by people who were spanked and rapped on the knuckles in school, and I would argue that they built something truly beautiful that the whole world has looked to for leadership and support. Would people who had problems "later down the road," i.e. as adults, have done something this magnificent? I think not. Again, however, I must point out that the minute you present the studies you speak of, you are contradicting yourself once again. If spanking causes problems later down the road, why are you yourself okay with parents doing it? How does the background of the person doing the spanking make any difference for the child being spanked? The original argument you presented is specifically about spanking in schools, not about spanking as a method of discipline in general. "Also, instead of a bend over and let me swat your butt, why not do a detention or a in school suspension." I have addressed this. I am not against other forms of punishment, but teachers have difficult jobs as it is; allowing corporal punishment gives them one more tool to make their jobs easier and to help students study in a focused environment [4]. Additionally, I have already pointed out that one benefit of spanking is that it prevents things like suspension and expelling, which goes on a student's permanent record. Let's be honest here; kids have no idea what they're doing. To make them live with their misdeeds for the rest of their lives in the form of a permanent record is only cruel, whereas if a quick spanking does the job, why not do that instead? "How would you like it if someone that you barely know walks by sees your on your phone and says okay stick that butt in the air. I would be a little concerned." How would you like it if someone you barely know drives by, sees you going a little bit faster than other drivers, pulls you over, and makes you pay a $150 fine? People get punished all the time by people they do not know, i.e. the police. This is nothing new. Being punished by people "you barely know," if you know them at all, is part of living in a civilized society. "And with just a spankingby [sic] a parent the CPS gets all huffy puffy. Why dont [sic] they do that when a kid gets spanked in school? It just makes no sense at all." I agree; why the hypocrisy? CPS should lay off corporal punishment in general. I'm glad we could agree on that. Once again, I urge you to list your sources individually instead of putting up a large website for voters and me to search through. Thank you for your rebuttal. I look forward to your concluding remarks. Sources: [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://history1900s.about.com... [4] http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com... [5] http://www.albany.edu... [6] http://www.apa.org...
cafa2ea5-2019-04-18T11:28:58Z-00000-000	I will be arguing that teachers should be allowed to carry, but not forced to, given that they have valid CHL licenses in the states which they reside.
cafa2ea5-2019-04-18T11:28:58Z-00001-000	No they should not. Teachers should wield pens, not guns.
ad85c0b0-2019-04-18T11:16:16Z-00001-000	First, I am not sure if you are educated or if you were forced to be, But if you were, It obviously is not being implemented in your life, As evidenced by your atrocious spelling and grammar (this system even has spell check). Of course, If English is not your native language, This is forgivable. Second, What I inferred from your argument was that you feel that third world counties are not as well developed because they don't have compulsory education. This is patently false. Out of the top 5 third world counties according to HDI (nationsonline. Org): In Kenya " primary school is free and compulsory" (epdc. Org) In Sao Tome and Principe "primary school is mandatory. " (borgenproject. Org) Pakistan is dedicated to "provide free and compulsory education for a minimum period" (norric. Org) and "has passed a law on compulsory education (eight years of schooling). " (norric. Org) Bangladesh "recently announced that it will extend free and compulsory primary education to all students through grade 8" (worldbank. Org) This means that 4/5 of the top 3rd world countries provide some form of compulsory education. Their position as "back wards" as you said, Is based upon their cultures, As well as their history of political and military unrest. Third, You are correct in that people with more education are typically payed better, But also pay more taxes. (collegeboard. Org) Therefore it should be easy for people to CHOOSE to get educated, And not be forced into it. Fourth, I would argue that Welfare should be abolished as well, But that is a separate debate, So I will say that those who are forced to be educated now against their will are already prone to fail in seizing the initiative to succeed and will therefore end up on welfare anyway and take more taxpayer money by leaching off of the education system. Fifth, If educated people make more money, Why would blue collar employers not hire more uneducated people who are not in a position to demand more pay? If anything, This would increase their prospects of finding a job, Albeit a menial one. And finally, Me being or not being on drugs has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I am not, Incidentally, But this weak jab at my validity as a debater shows how little you care about building a sound logical (or, In this case, Psychoanalytical) foundation for your assertions.
ef6663ee-2019-04-18T12:09:49Z-00000-000	Faith schools in England are academically "little or no better than any other schools", and pushing for their expansion is unlikely to boost social mobility, an education think tank has warned. Recent government reports have hailed faith schools as some of the best performing and most desirable schools in the country. But new analysis published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) suggests this may be biased, since faith schools take on a lower proportion of the poorest and most disadvantaged pupils (12.1 per cent at Key stage 2 compared to 18 per cent in non-faith schools). Religious segregation in faith schools 'dreadful' says catholic chief Catholic education officials have disregarded the report, however, arguing that the research is based on incorrect figures and “bears no resemblance” to their schools. The EPI report, entitled Faith Schools, Pupil Performance and Social Selection, follows new government proposals to allow new faith schools to recruit more than half of their pupils on religious grounds – lifting the current cap of 50 per cent. Faith schools in England are academically "little or no better than any other schools", and pushing for their expansion is unlikely to boost social mobility, an education think tank has warned. Recent government reports have hailed faith schools as some of the best performing and most desirable schools in the country. But new analysis published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) suggests this may be biased, since faith schools take on a lower proportion of the poorest and most disadvantaged pupils (12.1 per cent at Key stage 2 compared to 18 per cent in non-faith schools). READ MORE Religious segregation in faith schools 'dreadful' says catholic chief Catholic education officials have disregarded the report, however, arguing that the research is based on incorrect figures and “bears no resemblance” to their schools. The EPI report, entitled Faith Schools, Pupil Performance and Social Selection, follows new government proposals to allow new faith schools to recruit more than half of their pupils on religious grounds – lifting the current cap of 50 per cent.
73c45cf8-2019-04-18T18:25:27Z-00001-000	Extend
be8af927-2019-04-18T17:50:03Z-00003-000	Im doing this topic for a school essay and want to know other peoples opinions on it. I promise I will not accredit anything without your ok. I just want an argument against this. If you could do this that would be great thanks:)
77198a86-2019-04-18T17:38:38Z-00003-000	Saying that gun control legislation does not deter crime is simply ignorant. My opponent could never logically argue the fact that if rocket launchers were legal for citizens to own that they wouldn't be used in criminal activity. While his point is accurate in that everything the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut did was illegal, including stealing his mothers assault rifle, if assault rifles were prohibited then he wouldn't have had a gun to steal in the first place. "How will gun control legislation help the law abiding citizen who is responsible with practicing their rights?" my opponent asks. The simple answer is that gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets. I will not be naive and say that banning assault rifles will mean people will have no way to acquire them, because this simply isn't true. I also will not claim that banning assault rifles will solve our problem and prevent any further shootings, because it won't. But all it can do is help. The simple fact is that other than for hunting, there is no logical reason to own an assault rifle. One might say that they need it for "self protection", but unless a homeowner is facing a team of intruders in their home all armed to the teeth, a shotgun or pistol would do the job just fine. Seeing that there is no absolute need for these guns, why allow them to fill our streets and arm people who use them in mass shootings? My opponent's ideas for solving this problem sound perfect, in theory. However, the implementation of armed guards at schools across our country is something that will never happen for one simple reason, money. Obviously 90% of teachers approve of something that will make them safer every day, but when teachers are being laid off because of financial troubles our country faces today, what makes you think we can afford to station armed guards at every school in our country? The sad truth is that there are crazy people in this world who are capable of terrible things, and no one solution will be able to prevent their sick plots against children or even movie theater occupants without costing more money then our country is able to currently spend. Banning assault rifles would not fix the problem, but it would help. Getting as many guns like this off the street is the first step to solving the problem we face.
b21e001c-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00002-000	http://www.youtube.com... Here's another video. It isn't necessarily about childhood obesity, but it is a good video on obesity in America (and is somewhat entertaining). Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child(ren). By neglecting to feed a child nutritious foods and allowing them adequate amount of exercise, you are abusing them. We can encourage them to feel better (which would maintain mental health), but they still will be physically unhealthy. The emotional damage of being teased for your weight (something I can relate to) is absolutely devastating. Eating dinner as a family (without distractions) has been proven to be better for the kids. Children are less likely to smoke and engage in risky behaviors. If parents are too busy to cook dinner and eat with their kids at the dinner table, maybe they should've reconsidered having a family. To answer my opponent's question, "And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter?": Of course it should matter! The human body wasn't meant to carry 30 extra lbs. of fat. The fat kid most likely has a sleep apnea or a CPAP machine to held them breathe at night. The fat kid will probably develop type 2 diabetes. The fat kid probably has high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol. In response to my opponent's question, "Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion[?]": Society's opinion is the right opinion. Being overweight or obese isn't normal and should not be tolerated. Yes, we need to encourage positive self-esteem habits in our children, but something like being heavy is completely preventable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...
8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00004-000	I think that teens should get birth control because then they would be even more irresponsible than before now knowing that they can do whatever they what without parents consent and know they have a backup. That is very sick and really disgraceful to show that teens can get anything they want. Soon they'll be debating over if the legal limit of alcohol should be 16. I think that birth control should be for the adults because they will know when to use it and teenagers will use it maybe even daily. Birth control is a heavy burden and never be use to a teenager, even a responsible one.
8160cfd9-2019-04-18T18:44:31Z-00000-000	Marijuana is just like a step toward harder drugs like heroin, cocaine etc. Stoned driving and other drangers would defiinatly increase. With it legalized would increase the chances of drug use falling into the hands of kids. Physical damages will be done to user who abuse it. There would be and increase in secondhand smoke damage to the bystanders. http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
34496b7c-2019-04-18T18:15:34Z-00004-000	First off, I'd like to point a couple reason why your specific plan would fail. 1. It seems to me that you're main argument for reasons as to why minorities are not voiced and racism is growing is simply b/c of ACCESS to broadband networks. Your specific plan only outlines to action by the FCC to increase investment in the National Broadcast plan. It makes 0 sense that a government agency investing in a broadband plan would in turn spillover to these said minorities to a. have acces to them b. have access to them by bypassing the reasons they werent able to access them before c. solving racism seeing as broadband networks don't really allow people to "voice" their voice any better. d. to actually use the broadband to "voice their opinions" 2. Because racism/giving people "a voice" isn't exactly a prioritized pragmatic action in the USFG, where would the funding come from? Even if the government decides that this plan does have practical value to it, what is the brightline in which we cross to determine how much money will be needed to solve for your "advantages"? 3. Nowhere in any of your sources does it say that "radio and Tv increase racism" but in fact, they simply connect violent crimes with minorities more often. There are no studies that this in turn leads to racism Now a separate reason as to why increasing broadband is a bad idea. Assuming a world in which your plan of action does go through (free, faster broadband available everywhere to anyone), we would be facing a world in which we are investing more time/money into technology. In "Speed and Politics" Paul Virilio writes about the "integral accident" and the "war machine". Virilio argues that we are in a "pure war" which means that everything that humans do is naturally in the name of increasing militaristic strength i.e. faster car=faster tank, faster phone connection=faster communications for an air strike. The term "war machine" stems off of this as it is the power of the military that Virilio says that we as citizens are constantly striving to make it bigger, better, faster, etc. He argues that this is in human nature, to make something the fastest/best it can be to always outsmart and outgun the "bad guy". The term "integral accident" is an crisis level scenario that is caused by this great war machine. Virilio says that as our natural tendency as humans, we will continually make the war machine more destructive and faster to the point where in the future, the "fastest" war machine will be one w/o human consent b/c an overwhelming number of studies point to artificial intelligence suprassing humans in terms of brainpower and speed. Once this happens, an example Virilio gives is a nuclear response system. A possible threat will be analyzed by the computer. If a 51% risk is detected, the computer will automatically fire a nuclear warhead in response to the 51>49 risk. Even if the risk (in reality) is false and overhyped, it will be too late, the integral accident has already happened due to the lightning quick decision of the machine. After all that, the way broadband ties into this is quite simple. Obviously my opponent's plan is to increase the efficiency/speed/universality of the broadband system. However, this is just another example of feeding the "war machine". Examples that links this to it would be a faster processing super computer, faster quick response system to contingencies, etc. The fact that we are trying to better our technology is an example of us furthering its capacity in terms of speed/efficiency/power. Even if this specific instance of technological increase doesn't persuade you as the judge, vote con on the pure basis that my opponent's attempt to further a technological concept ties back to the "integral accident". When weighing the significance of both our cases, you are ultimately looking at an analysis between racism and the integral accident. Obviously the ACT of racism doesn't cause deaths and as i have proved, the integral accident does. Unless (for some reason) my opponent decides to stray from the defaulted "death count" framework (which is simply whoever saves the most amount of people in the end) that most policymakers use, you will vote con on the simple fact that the number of deaths negated from voting con substantially outweighs the number of deaths negated from voting pro.
bda53b78-2019-04-18T15:58:35Z-00005-000	People younger than 18 years old should be able to vote in the United States of America. This will be a short debate. Round 1 for con is acceptance.
603ee756-2019-04-18T11:22:47Z-00005-000	The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. = 1. The 0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 2. The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles 3. It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade./Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. 1. It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries. 2. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. 3. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. 4. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier. 1. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth"s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century. 1. Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago. The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. 1. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 2. Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high. 3. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. 1. I already refuted this before. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth"s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 1. Already refuted this 2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"s (IPCC) fifth assessment report. 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. Most of global warming is completely natural. 4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment 1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA 1. The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 2. Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 3. A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. 4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. ["] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 4. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 5. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 3. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years"two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we"ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions," - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia"s Center for Climate and Life 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don"t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that"s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it"s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it"s not solar." - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration"s Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Rest in comments section.
603ee756-2019-04-18T11:22:47Z-00006-000	I will begin with a few statistics and quotes from experts showing, unequivocally, that global warming has occurred. I will then move on to show that this effect is largely a result of human actions, technology, and the like. Next, I will provide quotes and sources specifically stating that the current level(s) of global warming could not be results of natural causes. Finally, I will address some of the arguments Pro is likely to make. I will point out that, at least in the past, he/she references sites such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", sources known to be some of the most biased that exist. On the other hand, the sources I reference are scholarly, scientific, and largely non-partisan. As the BoP is on Pro and he/she stated "man-made global warming isn't real", he/she will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and refute all counter-claims on this topic) that none of the global warming that has occurred has resulted from human action. If even some of it has resulted from human action, it would, by definition, be "real".Global Warming Occurring- "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.- Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.- Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.- Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.- The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.- Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850- "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can." - Stephen Hawking- Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years.Sources:https://climate.nasa.gov... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk... http://data.giss.nasa.gov... Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).http://nsidc.org...https://www.jpl.nasa.gov...http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu...IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science BasisHumans Are (at least partially) To Blame- "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.- "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment- "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA- "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5- "Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth- "Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University- "Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life Note: Some of these conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.Current Levels of Global Warming Not Natural- "If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies- "Volcanoes have a short-term cooling effect on the climate due to their injection of sulphate aerosols high into the stratosphere, where they can remain aloft for a few years, reflecting incoming sunlight back into space." - Zeke Hausfather- "Finally, solar activity is measured by satellites over the past few decades and estimated based on sunspot counts in the more distant past. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun fluctuates modestly on a cycle of around 11 years. There has been a slight increase in overall solar activity since the 1850s, but the amount of additional solar energy reaching the Earth is small compared to other radiative forcings examined. Over the past 50 years, solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined slightly, while temperatures have increased dramatically." - Carbon Brief- “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Potential Pro ArgumentBased on Pro's past debates on this subject, I know he/she is likely to make following arguments:"https://goo.gl...;Sorry, you were saying..." Many people debate the validity of this statistic/image, but we can put that aside. Global warming is about the long-term trend, not a single year-over-year increase in the size of a particular ice sheet. So, even if this is accurate, it is in no way sufficient in disproving the litany of sources cited above stating the long-term trend. Here is a Forbes article directly speaking to statistics of this nature: https://goo.gl...As stated above, Pro's other arguments often rest on sources such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", a few of the least reliable, least scientific, least objective sources in the world. I would point voters to the much more reputable, scientific, and unbiased sources I have used in my arguments.
a82d5461-2019-04-18T11:23:44Z-00000-000	Response to your round 1:You are committing an Argumentum ad Naturam fallacy because you are arguing that a vegetarian diet is bad as it is "not even natural".You are committing a Strawman Fallacy because you are vastly distorting, exaggerating and misrepresenting my view. I clearly stated that this debate will be about a whether "a well-balanced vegetarian diet is generally to be preferred over a well-balanced omnivorous diet." therefore your claims that "Meat contains certain ingredients which simply cannot be found in a stick of celery." and "One cannot subsist on legumes alone." are irrelevant and misrepresenting my view as I've never claimed that a celery-only or legume-only diet are to be preferred over an omnivorous diet.Furthermore, it is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate [14].My first round:In this debate, I will be arguing that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is healthier, has a less significant negative impact on the environment and reduces the suffering and death of sentient lifeforms.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet:In a 1988 report, it was found that there is a significant positive association between meat consumption and mortality because of all causes of death combined, coronary heart disease, and diabetes. [1]In another 2007 study, it was found that there is a significant positive association between red and processed meat intake and risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas [2].In a 2003 meta-analysis, it was concluded that long-term (≥ 2 decades) adherence to a vegetarian diet can lead to a significant 3.6-year increase in life expectancy [3].As it can reasonably be assumed that everyone would generally prefer not to have cancer in one’s rectum (or anywhere else), cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is generally healthier, leads to a higher life expectancy and reduces one’s chances of getting cancer in one’s rectum.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet has a less significant negative impact on the environment:According to a 2017 study, livestock farming is responsible for at least 14.5% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is estimated to be responsible for at least 51% of global GHG emissions “based on the most complete and comprehensive analysis of all factors associated with livestock products (including emissions from the animals themselves and lost carbon sequestration from land clearing for feed production) estimates the sector's contribution to be at least 51 per cent of total global GHG emissions” [4],[5]. It is important to note, however, that even 14.5% is more than emissions from all transport combined [6].The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has described eating less meat as "the most attractive opportunity" for making immediate positive changes to climate change [7].As it can reasonably be assumed that people generally have no intention of harming the environment and would prefer having a less significant influence on climate change, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A vegetarian diet reduces the suffering and deaths of sentient lifeforms:In the same way that it is immoral to torture a cat (or any other animal) for the sake of viewing pleasure, it is immoral to eat a cat (or any other animal) for the sake of tasting its flesh. [16]Mylan Engel’s argument against eating meat [15]:(p1) Other things being equal, a world with less pain and suffering is better than a world with more pain and suffering.(p2) A world with less unnecessary suffering (suffering which serves no greater, outweighing justifying good) is better than a world with more unnecessary suffering.(p3) Even a minimally decent person (a person who does the very minimum required by morality and no more) would take steps to help reduce the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering in the world, if they could do so with very little effort.(p4) Many nonhuman animals (certainly all vertebrates) are capable of feeling pain [9].(p5) Animals in the meat industry are suffering [10],[11],[12],[13].(p6) Refraining from eating meat and eating something else instead requires very little effort [14].(c) We ought to stop purchasing and consuming meat.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Overall, it can be concluded that a vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet as it is generally healthier, better for the environment and because the extended suffering animals endure outweigh the short pleasure of eating meat.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources:[1]: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 48, Issue 3, 1 September 1988, Pages 739–748,https://doi.org...[2]: Genkinger JM, Koushik A (2007) Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk. PLoS Med 4(12): e345. https://doi.org... [3]: Singh PN, Sabate J, Fraser GE. Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):526S-32S.[4]: Bogueva, Diana & Marinova, Dora & Raphaely, Talia. (2017). Reducing meat consumption: the case for social marketing. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 29. 10.1108/APJML-08-2016-0139.[5]: Goodland, R & Anhang, J. (2009). Livestock and climate change. World Watch. 22. 10-19.[6]: Ipcc.ch. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch... [Accessed 8 Jul. 2018].[7]: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lecture: ‘Global Warning - The impact of meat production and consumption on climate change’. September 2008[8]: Doug Gurian-Sherman, "CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (5.6 MB) , www.ucsusa.org, Apr. 2008[9]: National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. 1, Pain in Research Animals: General Principles and Considerations. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[10]: Joby Warrick, "They Die Piece by Piece: In Overtaxed Plants, Humane Treatment of Cattle Is Often a Battle Lost," Washington Post, Apr. 10, 2001[11]: Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, "Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America" (7.2 MB) , www.ncifap.org, Apr. 28, 2008[12]: Humane Society of the United States, "Undercover at Smithfield Foods" (467 KB) , www.humanesociety.org (accessed Jan. 17, 2011) [13]: Farm Sanctuary, "The Welfare of Cattle in Beef Production" (700 KB) , www.farmsanctuary.org (accessed Jan. 17, 2011)[14]: Craig WJ, Mangels AR; American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.PubMed PMID: 19562864.[15]: Engel Jr, Mylan (2000). The Immorality of Eating Meat. _Chapter in The Moral Life_:856-889. https://philpapers.org... [16]: 2. Rationalwiki.org. (2018). Essay:Why You Shouldn't Eat Meat - RationalWiki. [online] Available at: https://rationalwik
88e262a3-2019-04-18T19:07:44Z-00002-000	Since Pro has failed to present any new points in this debate so far, i will spend this argument refuting what Pro has said. Pro starts his argument with saying that " what kid wants to smoke and drink? " Well what kid wants to vote and worry about the government? thats "adult stuff" and for those that DO read about the government they may not be allowed to vote but they can discuss what they think with their parents, who are in fact parents and are in charge of the child's life. How long is it when a new election is started? In the USA it is probably 2-4 years, Governments can make a lot of changes in that time. Pro misinterprets my way of saying that children fend for themselves, when i say "fend for themselves" i mean survival, what is a child to do without proper guardians? Who helps the child when they are struggling through school? Who signs those permission slips saying they are allowed to take part in activities? Who registers them in school anyway? Now why are children restricted, and not allowed to do what the adults do? Because the majority of the people believe that children are not responsible enough. And the average "onlooker" knows whether a child's guardian is taking care of them or not, giving them food, shelter and clothing. The basic necessities of life. So Pro says that everybody over 18 gets a chance to change the future, children can shape their own future, why should children NEED to vote? How many of these children WOULD vote? Not only would allowing them vote be a waste of time, but also inconveniently increase problems with the government. Actually to refute what Con said that people over 18 can change the law, how many laws are actually passed that the people get to have a say in? Why doesn't the over 18 year old people change the law however they please? Because they system is not that simple! And that is what Pro side fails to recognize. Pro also says, "Who sets up schools and makes rules for them? Who goes to these schools? Who provides health care for those under the poverty line? " So who sends these children to school? Who provides them with school supplies? Who SUPPORTS THEM so they can go to school? Why can't children legally make contracts? because the average child is not RESPONSIBLE enough. "Who denies the right for children to choose where they live? " If you want to run away that is completely your choice, nobody is forcing you to do anything, especially the government. "Why, children don't even have the right to not be assaulted! " That is just simply ABSURD, Pro if you desire to be assaulted you don't have to report it to the police, you can always just keep it to yourself. If you WANT children to be legally raped, attacked, robbed, and kidnapped. and have no government to protect you, then not only do you not deserve the right to cast a vote, you also don't deserve to have a right in a say in the government! "I never said that kids shouldn't listen to their parents, I just said that they shouldn't have to agree with them. And I never said that children should hold seats in the government" Then why do we have parents? Gallery let us think for a moment? Why do we have guardians to protect us? Why do we have people to make decisions for us? Pro then goes on to say that children should be allowed to be in the government, and does a explanation on how they should be, but then finishes with nobody would vote for them anyway. Then why allow them? To open a seat for a child is just going to cause more problems for the government itself, unless the child is a genius, the child won't know finances, the child won't know all the laws, the child won't know everything they need to know to LIVE BY THEMSELVES. I would like to ask Pro to name any politician who does not have a high school graduate ( mind you i never said college ). As i said before i would deal with Pro's final point in his argument which was about rights. He talks about sexism, and racism. These were huge problems which were profoundly wrong but children will legally be able to vote, when they are old enough! With these older problems, women could not vote no matter their age! Same goes for African Americans. But children will get the opportunity to vote when they are old enough, and according to the government, and the vast majority of North America, the age is at 18. So Gallery what have we seen? In the end of Round 3, Pro still fails to realize what adults do in his life, and what responsibilities he will face when he becomes of age and must start thinking about fending for himself. But evidently he has not yet done so. And as did you Pro, I eagerly await your proud response.