_id
stringlengths 37
39
| text
stringlengths 3
37.1k
|
|---|---|
c95f87de-2019-04-18T19:47:32Z-00003-000 | No, the affordable part will be made by the free market, supply and demand etc...not the government. The Agency would be in charge of making sure all sex workers receive STD testing, provide security for workers, and ensure that fair wages are being given. Condoms are a given. Ever since mandatory condom use has been instigated in Nevada brothels not 1 sex worker has caught HIV. (fact) The sex industry was always a great wholesome place to work, platonic, no feeling sex, and you leave afterwards. No hard feelings. Somehow Nevada, Amsterdam, and Japan function, as well as many other countries. "More prostitutes mean more disease" I refer you to my previous statement about Nevada brothels, also, with testing and mandatory protection STD's would be a non-issue or very minor. Some people would contract herpes and the such, but the same thing happens with normal sex too. Besides, the workers would be tested monthly (if not weekly) and any diseases caught by them would quickly be treated or they would be taken, "out of circulation" Pimps are the ones with the business connections who know the men who want the sex. Take out the middle man and there is no "pimp hand" hurting these women. Their brothel would be able to arrange it (or a girl can handle herself, but it's unwise) How would spreading the sex business cause more crime? I'd buy sex. I'm a college student whom is probably more moral than most people. Questionable people and unquestionable people both want sex. So let's stop punishing unquestionable people. For example, the former gov. of NY. I had no issue with him, his scandal leaked, I still have no issue with him other than the fact that he was hypocritical. Prostitution is the oldest trade in existence and many of our world leaders have participated, many men wiser than I have participated (a simple google search of famous people using prostitutes would confirm). The only reason you assign the title of "questionable" is because it is in your mind an immoral thing to do and that someone is a BAD person for wanting sex. If you legalize something illegal, you create a legal market. Most people don't find it very safe having sex with hookers who have no protection, look like skanks, and entail a jail sentence. Make it legal and entrepreneurs will create clean safe environments for sex workers and their clients. This is indisputable. Drugs and prostituites are a common pair, because they're both illegal for the wrong reasons and shouldn't be illegal. Because hookers are FORCED to associate with people who break the law, drugs become involved. It would be easy to have a strict NO DRUG policy for any brothel on pain of being thrown out. If people want druggie hookers then they can find them outside of the brothel. No one SEEKS hookers that are into drugs, but because of the lifestyle they live they are forced into the drug underworld. "Pimp's will still be in control of these working girls, and there will still be horrible drug abuse, abuse of the women, and sex trafficking." No there won't. I've made it very clear how it WONT happen. The only sex trafficking that will happen if prostitution will be that of illegal sex workers. There's only one category left. Children. There's already a child sex trade, I hate it. I find it disgusting. No child under the age of consent should be having sex with anyone older than law permits them to have sex (if your state allows 16 and 20 year olds to have sex, then prostitution is fine with me) Pimps will be replaced by managers of brothels. Drugs into the brothels will be barred (and regulated and tested for, it could even be a requirement of employment at a brothel) Women enjoy sex just as much as men. It's just more of a taboo for women to like it because of the anglo saxon concept of a "whore". Before the 10 commandments and the take over of Christianity in the Western World prostitution was common place and prostitutes were called upon often. Examine the first tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Ishtar, a prostitute, is used to culture Enkidu. She is not made fun of, depicted as immoral, or killed for her ...skills. Let's examine the word, "degradation", defined by the dictionary as, "The state of being reduced in rank, character, or reputation" They are only degraded in your eyes. To most, they are indifferent. I don't care if a girl gets paid for sex. Hell I love it. The point being that "degrading" women is a very subjective point of view. Further, what about the degradation of men? Male prostitutes are also in high demand, women travel to Eastern Europe just for the sex all the time.. Greed is the root of all evil. You won't get rich being a prostitute. I have no idea why anyone would choose this lifestyle to get rich. The only ones that get rich are the ones that would be high class hookers that serve the elite of our country, and even then, they wouldn't be bill gates rich. If you really believed that money is the root of all evil you would donate your savings to charity. Right now. All of it. You don't need it because it's evil right? You only need what you need. "Women don't want to sell their bodies for sex." Then why are Nevada brothels FILLED with women. Why do many high class hookers have college degrees? It's a fun activity and if you can get paid for it...why not? "Making love to your husband or wife is not comparable to prostitution." In a country where divorce is fiftysomething percent, do you really think that argument is valid? Marriage is an institution of love and financial security coupled with the idea of passing on genes to carry on your name and genetics. Sex. Is pleasure. Pure pleasure. Nothing more. Nothing less. Making love and having sex are completely different concepts. "dumb down communities" sounds like you've been having too much sex sweetheart. There is no link between amount of sex and intelligence. ANYWHERE. I have an IQ of 130 and I love sex. I take it everywhere I can, from those I'm attracted to. I've refuted every single one of your arguments with logic and without hard fact I might add. There is plenty of hard fact to support my claims. Google around. Your move. |
54ffb6ed-2019-04-18T15:47:55Z-00005-000 | Thanks to my opponent. I will go ahead and jump right in. So to prove that homosexuality is a choice one need only look to society. There exist' a large (presumably numbering in the thousands) group of formerly gay individuals who claim to be living quite happily as now heterosexuals. There are also those who were heterosexual and have now chosen to be gay and are living happy lives in their new sexuality. They're motivation for making this change is irrelevant as their mere existence is proof that sexuality is a choice. A common method for opponents to attempt to debunk this fact, is to say that surely they are just in denial, or suppressing their true sexuality. This is easily dismissed as irrelevant as well since if even one of those formerly gay people is not lying, the only alternative is that sexuality is indeed a choice. I would argue that unless my opponent can prove that all formerly gay people are lying than it must be accepted that homosexuality is a choice and sexuality is not static. It is also necessary to consider the implications of sexuality not being fluid (not a choice). Pedophiles for instance cannot be treated because they are told that their sexual attractions are not able to be changed. Are we then to be accepting of pedophiles who remain abstinent? After all if they are abstinent who are they hurting? We must also explore the claim that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. This, like the other arguments which claim no choice, has a huge hole in the rationale. Jason Collins has an identical twin, Jaron, who was "astounded" to discover that his brother had entered into the homosexual lifestyle. If sexuality were predetermined, not a choice, and they share their genetic make up, the only conclusion one can logically draw is that it was obviously a choice for Jason, as Jaron is not gay. To conclude I would say that as it is impossible for my opponent to prove that sexuality is genetic, or biological since the evidence is inconclusive at best; we must use reason and logic, which dictate unequivocally that sexuality is fluid and not static. With all due respect, you may reject one of these arguments but you cannot in good conscience reject all. http://isites.harvard.edu... http://socialinqueery.com... http://www.americanthinker.com... http://www.thenation.com...# The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011). |
a9a3ece2-2019-04-18T14:04:59Z-00001-000 | First, of we need to think about if the parent would approve of such behavior by the staff of the school. What if the parent really doesn't approve of the parent disciplining their child and the parent doesn't discipline their child at home most likely. I think it would be very reasonable for a warning, another warning, and then they should leave to go to the discipline office. I am wondering what my opponent thinks about the whole problem and what would they do about the situation. |
28b1a24d-2019-04-18T19:06:02Z-00001-000 | Thank you Mirza and to the forum. As we close our debate, I would like to first comment on my opponents rebuttals and well documented arguments. Then I will close with my final thoughts. I will kindly disagree about the statement Mirza made in paragraph 1 rebuttal: "To me, this is like saying that we should not try to find a cure for AIDS, because there is still cancer, polio, lupus, and so forth." --> In this statement, Mirza is comparing driving distractions to AIDS which seems to be a drastic comparison. Contracting or being born with a disease is not the same as choosing to engage in distracting driving behavior. We are progressing in identifying new ways to "cure" driver distractions. Blue tooth phones and voice activated controls are examples. The comparison that is mentioned by Mirza is mute. Why do we need a law to tell us that it's wrong and unsafe? How about this... if we want to ensure that no one uses a cell phone in hand while driving, create a law that addresses the car and the cell phone companies. "From this day forward, to ensure driver and pedestrian safety, all new cars come equip with built in speaker phones -voice activated, and cell phones shall not transmit a call nor text if going over the speed limit of 30 mile per hour unless transmitted through the car." Temptation removed, distraction eliminated. Why can't it be a law upon manufacturing companies instead of on the people? Paragraph 2- We are not allowed to drive on other people's property because it's other people's property. It's against the law because it's my property. The limits are in place because of rights of ownership, not because of safety. Road safety analysts predict that by 2030, when all baby boomers are at least 65, they will be responsible for 25% of all fatal crashes. In 2005, 11% of fatal crashes involved drivers that old. [1] Should we place a law now to make it illegal to drive when you are older than 65? I'd still like to point out the mixed messages that many states are more than happy to tweet you with up-to-the-minute directions on how to steer clear of a traffic jam. At least 22 states that ban texting while driving offer some type of service that allows motorists to get information about traffic tie-ups, road conditions or emergencies via Twitter (DeMillo, 2009). As stated in round 2 While I agree Rome was not built in a day, the baby steps in this war against distracted driving should not start legislating a device that will, in a couple years, be more advanced and will not be much of a factor. Let's identify and target activities that have been happening since the creation of the automobile. More than 80% of drivers admit to blatantly hazardous behavior: changing clothes, steering with a foot, painting nails and shaving. (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Survey) [2] People also admit to eating, using mp3 players, applying makeup and engaging in other distracting behaviors. There are many distractions and some by personal choice, others by equipment such as the GPS, and some that are not controllable, such as passengers. Education on how to ignore distractions and drive distraction free is what we should be focusing on. Fatigue is a cognitive distraction that is extremely dangerous. Many accidents are caused by driver fatigue, and police officers even report pulling over drivers for DUI and finding out they are just sleepy. If you are drowsy―especially from medication―then you need to get off the road. [3] It's not illegal. It is easier for you to control the inside of your vehicle. For example, you can make a decision to establish a pre-trip routine to set your radio buttons, mirrors, and seat before you drive. You can also decide not to eat in the car, answer the cell phone, or play movies.[3] It is your responsibility and the responsibility given to you when you receive your driver's license. I will conclude my side of this debate by once again thanking my opponent and this forum. Works cited [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://www.negligentdriving.com... [3] http://www.dmv.org... DeMillo, A. (2009, Sept 20). Mixed Messages on Texting and Driving. Retrieved from Associated Press and ABC News website as mentioned in round 2 |
7c48bf09-2019-04-18T16:59:10Z-00000-000 | Given Pro's premises, her conclusion comes as a surprise. After pointing out the negative consequences of no birth control, her conclusion turns out to be that "there should not be any birth control in high school."I think there should be birth control in highschool for all the reasons Pro gave--that having a baby in highschool may force a mother to have to dop out and get a crappy job.Anybody who has sex and doesn't want a baby should use birth control, whether they are in highschool or not. |
7c48bf09-2019-04-18T16:59:10Z-00001-000 | i think birth control is very high in high school they are all too young and they are making the wrong choses and they should really think about there choses because if they have a babie in high school then they have to drop out and then they have to get a crappy job to take care of that babie so there fore there should not be any birth control in high school |
fc220308-2019-04-18T16:28:36Z-00005-000 | Many people believe that fracking (hydraulic fracturing) should be banned. If you are one of those people, accept the challenge. |
be328f3c-2019-04-18T19:54:56Z-00003-000 | Abortion should be banned! Its not right to punish an unborn child. If the person doesn't want the baby. Then put it up for adoption!!!! And try to give it the best life possible! |
109aecea-2019-04-18T17:09:12Z-00003-000 | As you mentioned their creativity and burning ambition of being modern can be shown in other directions, however school is an educational institution. There must be some frames and rules in order to control children in some degree. Also uniform is a saving of time. One more time, their freedom is not limited with school uniform. |
109aecea-2019-04-18T17:09:12Z-00005-000 | My position is strong about wearing the school uniform. First and foremost, it is not place for fun, for stroll or something like that. The most important feature is discipline and that's why it must differ from another situations. |
452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00003-000 | Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. |
e671615f-2019-04-18T13:01:23Z-00005-000 | Okay, I accept your challenge. I do have a problem though, I am for revamping welfare in a way that it wouldn't cost the government any money, I am not for abolishing it completely. Nothing should be given away for free, doesn't matter if you have children and need food. My safety net would be a compulsory factory service for financial assistance if you're looking for a job. The work would be available nationwide, giving families the ability to stay upright while at the same time discourages dependence based on the hard work for minuscule pay. It can work around your schedule, especially if you have college work. Children would be allowed to work in non-hazardous jobs there is they so wish, teaching them independence if they have parents that shouldn't even be parents. So the result is a higher GDP, more productive population, a surplus from the welfare programs, a system that could show some children the quality of hard working independence, and an effective safety net. The products made in the factory would be sold/used based on what was made, though I would primarily hope to sell them abroad. Also welfare is not only for parents, in some states, like Connecticut, medicaid is for all adults. http://www.ct.gov... |
40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00003-000 | Net neutrality is very important for the nation, as it does not allow bigger companies like Google or ebay to make their network faster and slow down other smaller networks |
3e9ff172-2019-04-18T12:09:10Z-00005-000 | Abortion is rang no one should murder there unborn child. If a women has a right to the choice of the abortion ,,well the baby has a choice and should have the right to live. Its Evil to kill a baby .there should be no argument because any rebuttal means your stance is kill a child infant you created. it makes no sense religious wise, morally makes no sense at all, and it shouldn't make legal sense because murders illegal. |
a46d050e-2019-04-18T19:24:31Z-00000-000 | 1. Re: Separation of Church and State violation Numa, this is an impossibility, because no such clause (in the sense that you are thinking it) exists. In a letter to the Danbury Association, Jefferson wrote that the government should not prohibit the free exercise thereof one's religion, thus establishing a separation of church and state. In other words, the government cannot stop people from practicing whatever religion they choose. He didn't explicitly say (or necessarily even mean) that the government should or can not have any affiliation with a religious institution whatsoever. Also, I ask the readers to take into account my rebuttal against this point in previous rounds. 4. Re: Government funded things should have no religious affiliation. This debate is about vouchers, i. e. the distribution of funds. A religious institution funded by the government doesn't necessarily indicate a relationship with ANYTHING. It merely acts as a source of funding. For instance, if an insurance company represents a Jewish client, and the owner of the company is Christian, it doesn't mean that the owner nor the company affiliate with the same views as the Jewish person they're helping, nor Christian views either. Similarly, vouchers and where they are spent don't recognize or favor any particular group. They merely act as a means of paying for something which society feels should be publicly funded. Clearly, schools already fall under this category. |
d4007386-2019-04-18T15:20:15Z-00003-000 | I think that YouTube should not be banned! YouTube is part of everyday life now, and many children in school are getting taught through YouTube. |
a9a3f1c3-2019-04-18T11:57:38Z-00003-000 | I believe that teens should have social media because it helps them to connect with friends , family and peers. But teens should be limited on how much social media in one day because back when I was in school 4 years ago teens spent most of their lunch break on social media bullying others if their siblings ruined their photo or if their voice sounded funny through the voice recorder on the phone or Ipad. |
65c26fea-2019-04-18T19:20:32Z-00008-000 | The Internet is probably one of the greatest, most powerful, and most useful tool to be invented perhaps of the entire last millennium. This is arguable, as you will no doubt see in my opponent's argument the negative effects of the Internet on our society. Definitions are simple: the Internet is used here to mean the World Wide Web, and other Internet-based communications. Society means the world as a whole, internet users and hosts alike. Positive effect is to convey that the Internet has been beneficial to society. Furthermore: I have classified this debate under "society" to indicate that the debate is not primarily about the technology of the Internet, but, as the title suggests, its effects on society. The Internet has become a crucial tool in modern life. It is estimated that over 1 billion people have regular access to the internet. The modern economy, and most modern businesses now have a heavy reliance on it. The internet itself is a huge profit centre. Many people now cannot imagine living without the internet. It provides easy access to even the most obscure of information, allows people to share their opinions and other often useful content with anyone who has access to the internet, and it enables users to have cheap communications with anyone around the world, even instantly. It even has given people the chance to fall in love with like-minded people within just minutes! It can be used for educational, commercial, social, and entertainment purposes, and while many people have many complaints to make about the Internet, even they cannot deny the usefulness of the Internet. So, I await my opponent, with some idea as to what they might say. May the best debater win. |
1b93e28c-2019-04-18T13:45:18Z-00000-000 | I don't feel that I have much left to add to the debate. The fundamental issue is that the American economy is weighed down by regulation and restrictions that it cannot impose upon the entire world. Without a balancing mechanism that effectively preserves the viability of real industry, our economy will continue to suffer. You cannot fix the underlying issue with a minimum wage increase. The most secure and viable markets in the US are ones that include serving consumers for a reason. We are a consumer country. We regulate, by extension of policy and regulation, what markets can compete against foreign competition and what markets can't. As of right now, we heavily suppress industry that produces actual material goods. Yes, exceptions exist, but we currently take far more than we give. We import more food and resources than we export. We do not import resources and export the fruits of our labor. The world, primary, trades for our bank notes. They also trade for the rights to use our patents and copyrights, which we enforce through global political agreements that greenlight direct enforcement by agencies or military. We also trade military aid for political compliance, and this supports our immaterial economy. If tomorrow, the world no longer accepted our bank notes or recognized our patent and copyright law.. we would be left with our material trade and our they would be out of compliance with our military-aid agreements. Our actual exports could never support the consumerism of America. That's the underlying reason against increasing minimum wage. You can't simply take more from the corporations. Every dollar spent out of the US economy is only capable of buying greater oppression of foreign laborers. We buy coffee beans, iPhones, clothes, televisions, raw resources, oil, and obviously much more from these impoverished countries. There are so many things that we cannot make here in America, because our government won't allow us to take the lower standard of living that comes with deregulation. Meanwhile, we do allow ourselves to benefit from the willingness of other governments to do so. The result is fundamentally slave profiteering, but it's far enough away and done so ambiguously that it doesn't bother the common persons' sensibilities. When we suddenly find our quality of life decreasing, what we're actually seeing is a quiet improvement of living standards abroad. Increasing minimum wage is just a reassertion of our "right" to do nothing, but we need to be able to back it up if we want it to work. We need to take more and give less, and they need to give more and take less. That's the end result. So if they refuse to give more and take less, like they've been quietly doing, the minimum wage increase will only result in higher commodity prices. Foxcon in China will increase their costs for iPhones, Apple will increase the price, and our dollars will be devalued. The dollar devaluation will impact every unspent dollar; social security, savings, investments.. etc. The whole thing is a mess, and we are very much threatened by time. Over time, it's inevitable for abrupt changes to occur in this type of economy. China could erupt into civil war, and we could lose a large portion of the goods that create our zero-material-production jobs. We need to move away from earning off the backs of people who work much harder to receive much less than we do. We need to do it in a way that doesn't devastate our country. Giant corporations like Wal-Mart that employ many, many people will not be viable. We need to phase them out without leaving our people stranded. We need to be able to sustain ourselves without taking more than we give. |
1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00000-000 | Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points: To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled "Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen" {3} This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state "Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete." {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does. Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point. Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round. So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON. Additional Sources; {3} Video of Shootout; link listed above {4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com... |
1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00002-000 | In your first paragraph you stated that shootouts are not hockey, yet merely a series of breakaways. However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game. The reason these shootouts are done is because hockey is a physically imposing game and if after 60 minutes of play and an overtime period a winner isn't yet deemed the league doesn't want to physically tax players more or risk injury; thus the shootout. The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey. Even though a goalie could have a terrific game but have it negated by a shootout, that is still a fair ending because the shootout displays both the skills of the shooter and the goalie. In the specific game you mentioned, Braden Holtby, also had a good game, blocking 29 out of 30 shots. {1} He just continued his excellence further in the shootout and was rewarded in the win. It is not unfair to losing goalkeepers as shootouts are not based upon luck or chance: stopping breakaways as a goalie takes tremendous skill. The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey. In the Home Run Derby the ball is being pitched slowly and right down the middle which never happens in baseball. Additionally, a football players never has to throw through a physical hole in a game like one would do in practice. The only comparable situation you mentioned is a free throw shootout which would not be a bad way to break a tie. However, due to basketballs high scoring nature a quick tiebreaker isn't as necessary because there is never a long stretch in which no team scores. Not to mention that people are not getting body checked constantly in basketball. Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting. The anticipation and the pressure that lies on one 5-second span makes a shootout an exhilarating event. ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout. The players are the ones who actually have to participate so their opinions should be held with high regard. One of your main points was the negativity players feel and the unfairness and how teams feel cheated. However if only 20 percent dislike it [10 percent said they were indifferent], then it seems as if the majority of NHL players do not feel the way you have described about shootouts. Sure a team will feel dejected after a loss but the general consensus is that players are in favor of shootouts. The players agree it adds a rush of excitement to the game for the fans. {2} To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise. In conclusion, the shootout is good for the NHL for these reasons: 1) It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game. 2) It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers. 3) It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans. 4) The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it. Sources: {1} https://www.nhl.com... {2} http://www.espn.com... |
1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00003-000 | Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com... |
7d86cda5-2019-04-18T19:06:31Z-00001-000 | 2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. Concur. I accept the PRO side of this topic. C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular. According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com... C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days. According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org... C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events. This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love. CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity? Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one! P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL. |
34048585-2019-04-18T19:28:28Z-00001-000 | I will start off where I last ended with: 21. Many religions have their God(s) asking for animal sacrifices. 22. The ecosystem needs to be kept in check. Without hunters things like the Deer outbreak in Oshkosh, Wisconsin will start to happen. Where the deer population is growing out of hand and the deers eat all the tree saplings, slowly killing the forest. 23. Except for our canines, a human history of being hunters and gatherers, and an evolutionary history of eating meat. 24. I also believe in nonviolence, with humans. I consider animals to be on a lower level than us because we have rational thinking and the ability to reason. 25. Not highly developed enough. We aren't declaring war at all, anywhere. 26. Same with me having a balanced diet. 27. ? 28. And they all taste disgusting (jk). But more seriously these vegetable substitutes are often artificially made and bad for the body. My problem with your argument is that you base all of your information off of a biased magazine source. You are also very unclear about what your arguments are contrasted with your resolution. You make points as to why you think eating meat is bad and vegetables better but provide no evidence as to why killing animals is wrong. I expected this to be a more LD style debate solely based off of a moral standpoint. I have yet to see this from you and even your ethics area isn't compliable with what you want to prove. You wish to prove that ALL shouldn't eat meat because of ethic problems yet only provide individual opinions to back up this contention. |
34048585-2019-04-18T19:28:28Z-00003-000 | As my opponent states that an animal is any such LIVING thing other then a human being. Living is any thing with a living memory. My aunt and I had had a recent argument about this and she had stated that different animals can remember on different levels. Some seem to have just the basic genetic memories in the DNA provided at birth. I would like to ask my opponent a question as well as any reader that have and is intrested in thes debate. question: Could you kill an animal to eat? The fowlling link is to a video of how people treat amimals that they eat everyday. (www. youtube. com/watch? v=bJfXami4haU) Out of the amount of people in the world that eat meat what percent of that is actually killed by the person that is going to eating the amimal. I don't know the actually percent of that ,nevertheless most of the people (humans) in the US usally go to the store to buy the meat that they will be eatting. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ These are some of the reasons for me being a Vegetarian. >The Environment 1. Conservation of Fossil fuel. It takes 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of beef protein; 35 calories for 1 calorie of pork; 22 calories for 1 of poultry; but just 1 calorie of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of soybeans. By eating plant foods instead of animal foods, I help conserve our non-renewable sources of energy. 2. Water Conservation. It takes 3 to 15 times as much water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. As a vegetarian I contribute to water conservation. 3. Efficient use of grains. It takes up to 16 pounds of soybeans and grains to produce 1 lb. of beef and 3 to 6 lbs. to produce 1 lb of turkey & egg. By eating grain foods directly, I make the food supply more efficient & that contributes to the environment. 4. Soil conservation. When grains & legumes are used more efficiently, our precious topsoil is automatically made more efficient in its use. We use less agricultural resources to provide for the same number of people. 5. Saving our forests. Tropical forests in Brazil and other tropic regions are destroyed daily, in part, to create more acreage to raise livestock. By not supporting the meat industry, I directly reduce the demand to pillage these irreplaceable treasures of nature. Since the forest land "filters" our air supply and contains botanical sources for new medicines, this destruction is irreversable. >Personal Health 6. No deficiencies. There is no nutrient necessary for optimal human functioning which cannot be obtained from plant food. 7. High fat plus cholesterol. Animal foods are higher in fat than most plant foods, particularly saturated fats. Plants do not contain cholesterol. 8. "Carb" deficient. Meat is deficient in carbohydrates, particularly the starches which are so essential to proper health. 9. Vitamin deficient. Except for the b-complex, meat is largely deficient in vitamins. 10. Agricultural Chemicals. Being higher on the food chain, animal foods contain far higher concentrations of agricultural chemicals than plant foods, including pesticides, herbicides, etc. 11. Exposure to livestock drugs. There are over 20,000 different drugs, including sterols, antibiotics, growth hormones and other veterinary drugs that are given to livestock animals. These drugs are consumed when animal foods are consumed. The dangers herein, in secondary consumption of antibiotics, are well documented. 12. Pathogenic Microorganisms. There are a host of bacteria and viruses, some quite dangerous, that are common to animals. When I eat meat, I eat the organisms in the meat. Micro-organisms are present in plant foods too, but their number and danger to human health is by no means comparable to that of those in meat. 13. Shelf life differential. Plant foods last longer than animal foods. Try this experiment: Leave out a head of lettuce and a pound of hamburger for 1 day, which will make you sick? 14. Organoleptic Indications of Pathenogens. Plant foods give tell-tale signs of "going bad". 15. Heart Disease. Meat eating increases the risk of heart disease, this country's #1 killer. The correlation is an epidemiological fact. 16. Cancer prevention. Of all the natural cancer prevention substances found: vitamin C, B-17, hydroquionenes, beta carotene, NDGA, - none has been found to be animal derived. Yet most meats, when cooked, produce an array of benzenes and other carcinogenic compounds. Cancer is infinitely easier to prevent than cure. Soybeans contain protease inhibitor, a powerful anticancer compound. You won't find it in useful quantities in animal based food. 17. Disease Inducing. The correlation between meat consumption and a wide range of degenerative diseases is well founded and includes. .. .. Osteoporosis Kidney Stones and Gallstones Diabetes Multiple Sclerosis Arthritis Gum disease Acne. Aggravated by animal food. >Personal Finances 18. Health care costs. Being healthier on a vegetarian diet means spending less on health care. 19. Food costs. Vegetarian foods tend to cost less than meat based items. >Ethics 20. Love of animals. I love animals as I love myself. I have no desire to kill them or cause them harm. 21. Respect for Sentient Life. I show gratitude to my Creator(s? ) by eating as low on the food chain as possible. 22. Small sacrifice The sacrifice I make is nothing compared to the animals, its life. 23. Natural diet. Our hands, teeth, feet, intestinal tract. .. even our body chemistry is that of an herbivore. 24. I believe in nonviolence. (Slaughter isn't any diffrent. ) 25. World Peace. There can never be peace among men while men are declaring war on other highly developed life forms. 26. Clear conscience. I know what I'm doing is right. I feel good inside about my decision to remain "meatless" 27. Example. To live this way is to protect the underlying values of those around me. 28. Easy substitutes. There are vegetable based substitutes for every meat product imaginable. [Source: The Whole Earth Vegetarian Catalogue] R E S O U R C E S HOME The ALF FAQ Meat. org Video Animal Rights FAQ The Taste of Depravity The Abolitionist Project Animal Rights Resources When Meat Is Not Murder Low IQ Link to Eating Meat Meat Is Murder (The Smiths) Meat / Rheumatoid Arthritis The Post-Darwinian Transition The Slaughter of Animals for Food Meat and Bowel Cancer Resources Slaughterhouse: video (mp4: 5.55Mb) Red meat: the recipe for bowel cancer? British meat crisis: has BSE spread to sheep? |
34048585-2019-04-18T19:28:28Z-00005-000 | I am a vegetarian, and I will like to let whom ever takes me on this debate to go first. I will prove my case in the next round! Than you |
6340764-2019-04-18T18:24:24Z-00000-000 | Basically I am opposed to illegal immigration, I am totally for giving people better lives but i don't feel that it should be at the cost of others. If all of America's benefits and opportunities is a life boat and the people already on it are citizens, we can't just keep putting people on the life boat(illegal immigrants) because than it endangers the people already on the life boat. And I know feel that illegal immigrants probably haven't done anything illegal in their lives and they had good intentions when they got in the US but just the sheer act of them bypassing the usual protocols of becoming a citizen is what is illegal, and that is something we cannot look past, I feel America is not stepping up to the task and securing boarders, that they are almost aiding and abetting them in committing the crime of coming to the US illegally. |
c03bbaad-2019-04-18T15:16:06Z-00004-000 | Playing football at an early age helps kids develop at the sport. Do you accept? |
4468ab68-2019-04-18T18:32:15Z-00000-000 | Vote CONtra |
e32668a7-2019-04-18T17:45:53Z-00003-000 | not all fat people are jolly |
cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00006-000 | students should not have to wear uniforms, because they get no chance to show their personality, and the students hate them. |
cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00003-000 | My opponent has made several contentions: (1) I am a student, (2) I know uniformed students - I hate them, and (3) uniformed students become so repressed they party too hard when they let loose. My opponent's arguments represent, respectively:(1) an appeal to authority. While my opponent may be a student, he is not necessarily every student, nor does his status as a student confer upon him any special abilities to discern the advantages and disadvantages of uniforms; and(2) & (3) sampling bias. My opponent has not provided carefully scrutinized statistics but rather his own selective sample of a group of uniformed hooligans. These hooligans may not be representative of the entirety of students who wear uniforms. In addition, the earlier mentioned problem with regards to the elimination of raucous parties appears to be no problem at all if the elimination of such parties preserves the safety of the students. I am sure there are some nice uniform-wearing students in the world, Con. You just need to meet them. Perhaps you could don a uniform and approach them in disguise. If they accept you, the uniforms must be working. As an aside, I went to a school that had a uniform and a school that had a dress code (elementary and high school, respectively). I don't know about all of the students, but I was an okay enough individual. Methinks uniforms might not be the cause of the issues of which you complain. |
2fa2d5d5-2019-04-18T19:44:52Z-00005-000 | True, the government makes more money in seignoirage than it loses. Still, just because the government makes money overall, doesn't mean it shouldn't cut out a losing endevour. The present system of nickels and pennies still loses over $150 million a year, regardless of how much it costs to make bills. If we adopt the plan, thats an extra $150 million dollars in the government's pockets that isn't adding to the deficit. Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost. Your second objection is that we need pennies for transactions etc. But, transactions are already rounded. When you buy gas, the price per gallon isn't $3.59, but $3.599. Thats what that miniature number farthest to the right on the sign means. So, rather than rounding off tenths of cents, we would be rounding off full cents. Some argue this would lead to a 'rouding tax' where buyers are robbed of pennies on every transaction. But, a study was conducted, and simple logic would show, that out of the countless transactions performed everyday, there are an even number of transactions that would round up and round down, leaving the monetary advantage null. So, we should abolish the penny because they are personally annoying, and would save taxpayers $150 million dollars a year without effecting transactions. |
e50c77f6-2019-04-18T18:13:22Z-00005-000 | TopicThe topic of this debate will be: "Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural". The pro will be arguing that homosexuality is not a decision, and that it is natural. The con will be arguging that homosexuality is not natural, and optionally argue that it is a decision(However this leads on if it is not natural).DefinitionsDecision: "the act or process of deciding; determination, as of aquestion or doubt, by making a judgement" [1]Natural: "existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): anatural bridge." [2]In this debate, we will be referring to natural as something that is formed by nature. Making a decision does not constitute being formed by nature. Debate StructureRound 1: This round will be used for acceptance of the debate and/or for any definitions either side would like to make prior to their arguments.Round 2: In this round, both sides will state their arguments. Neither side will respond to each others arguments directly.Round 3 and 4: In this round, both sides will respond to/rebutt their opponents arguments. No additional arguments may be made during this round, only response to pre-existing arguments.Round 5: In this round, both the pro and con will conclude their arguments. No additional arguments may be made.Debate RulesBurden of Proof: The burden of proof is on both the pro and the con. Pro must prove that homosexuality is natural and is not a decision, whereas Con must prove that homosexuality is unnatural, and optionally that it is a decision(However this follows if it is unnatural).Respect: Both the pro and con must be respectful to each other, and must refrain from any insulting, discriminating or harmful remarks that are not directly relevant to the debate.Evidence: Provision of evidence will be required for any kind of statistical/scientific finding. All evidence mentioned or used during the debate must be cited or else the opposition will not be required to respond to the particular argument in which the evidence is used.Listing of Arguments: It is required that when making an argument, that it be labeled and optionally numbered. If an argument made by either the pro or con is not able to be clearly referenced, misinterpretation will be the fault of the person who made the argument. In other words, number/name your arguments so clarity can be ensured.References (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...Note: This debate is a repost of the following(http://www.debate.org...) in which someone accepted it thinking they were taking a different position to what they were. The debate is open. |
8bd7f617-2019-04-18T16:43:06Z-00001-000 | Thanks for responding. Now let me say something first. When my opponent talked about me saying Obama, I just wanted to comment on how Obama is intent on getting stricter gun control laws. First of all, let me refresh you on the topic. I said that gun control laws do more harm than good. I know that people don't feel safe about violence in schools, and neither do I. But once again, I believe that gun control laws are not the answer to this. To answer this, I have a counter-plan. More on that in the next round. My opponent failed to rebut any of my points, like how it goes against the Constitution. Nor did he/she rebut the point that Connecticut had some the strictest gun control laws, yet that didn't work. Secondly, I am going to talk about 'self-defense'. This is relevant, and I am going to bring it up. My opponent talked about an outdated study talked about how 2.5 million guns were used for self defense(1). However, I found a recent study saying the same thing. 2.5 million people use their guns only for self defense. And of the 2.5 million using the gun to defend themselves, the majority of them use it only to scare them off(1). Less than 8% of the time does the citizen harm or kill the attacker. (1). Guns are a way to protect ourselves from murder and/or rape. Now on to my own point. As I said before, guns are used for self defense. Once again, a recent study stated that 2.5 million gun users have their gun only for self defense. The main problem with gun control - criminals don't listen. Law abiding citizens who follow the law will get rid of their means for self defense if it is against the law. But the point is, the whole reason why criminals are criminals is because they break the LAW. Banning guns won't help anything. Think about it - during the Prohibition, alcohol was banned. During this period though, the rate of consumption of alcohol increased ten fold. People started making alcohol in their own backyards, and tons of black markets popped up. Think about what would happen should guns be banned. My friend's uncle is a gun maker, and he told me that people can't get enough of guns because they are afraid guns are going to banned. Do you think that a criminal would be more likely to break into a house that the owner might be able to defend or go in with the knowledge that they are unarmed and have no weapons? A Harvard Study has actually found out that in countries such as Russia that completely banned guns, the murder rate is 20.54 when other countries that have no gun control laws like Finland the murder rate is 1.98 (2). Just imagine what would happen to the U.S's murder rate if we banned guns. Sources: http://www.law.harvard.edu... https://www.gunowners.org... |
e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00002-000 | I've never claimed that I'm okay with "kids" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; "Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. " Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/ |
8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00000-000 | I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: "The title of this argument is "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings." The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument." Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. "School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few."[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com... |
8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00001-000 | The title of this argument is "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings." The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument. |
8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00004-000 | I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual. |
d92d66e3-2019-04-18T16:32:17Z-00002-000 | "but it should be up to the children" Children are not capable of making decisions for themselves As long as children live with their parents, their parents make the decisions. Children can make bad decisions and therefore should not be allowed to make decisions on their own. My opponent has proven nothing. |
56297d29-2019-04-18T15:27:38Z-00004-000 | I think it should because its a time to spend with family for a whole month instead of being away from you family |
1f6b2834-2019-04-18T14:19:41Z-00003-000 | Uniforms are necessary: 1.Many schools across the world especially government schools receive students from culturally, ethically and economically diverse back grounds and having a similar clothing provides the students with a sense of unity and equality. Having uniform makes all students equal representatives of the schools whereas wearing clothing of choice creates division among students and partiality from teachers. 2. It helps the school officials to recognize their student much faster in case of any emergency. School uniform is the best and safest way to avoid any sort of obscenity inside the school premises. 3.Embracing one"s individuality can subdue others". Uniforms prevent that. In competitions outside school uniforms create togetherness in students from the same school. 4.It also prevents students from wasting their time on taunting, teasing and/or admiring other students" clothes or dressing style. |
8bd07da7-2019-04-18T18:07:45Z-00002-000 | Part of the issue? Global warming patterns are more directly correlated to the sun patterns than with CO2 emissions. "So what Beginner seems to be saying is he drives a gas guzzling vehicle and could give a damn if he kills innocent life forms." My opponent seems to think that gas is ONLY used in vehicles. The oil extracted is a very precious and much needed commodity. Oil runs everything. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the car you drive, the housewares...all the items in this link: http://www.anwr.org... and much more. Almost everything requires oil. The world is now in a state that it cannot run without oil. By giving up oil, you are agreeing that we should give up the production of nearly everything in the world. We should stop producing housing, ventilation, commodities (such as clothing, toothbrush), etc. You are saying we should give up running water (because the engines running such pumps are, guess what? OIL-facilitated) and nearly all common necessities you probably don't even think about. By denouncing nuclear energy, my opponent has also agreed to alternative forms of energy. Since we do not have anything close to a sufficient amount of supplies (economically and literally) to produce enough 'clean' alternative energy, we would be relying on the burning of fossil fuels (the old method) which is much more accessible/practical to mass produce. The irony is that we use nuclear energy because its proponents want cleaner energy. They are against using oil/burning fossil fuels so they support using nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is very clean and does not harm the environment when contained. If my opponent is against oil-energy, than the only other practical option is nuclear and vice versa. Other options such as wind and solar are expensive and hard-to-make products. The production of such clean energy alternatives will not cover our energy consumption rate. We consume millions of barrels per day even with nuclear energy: http://www.accuval.net... |
14339aee-2019-04-18T19:27:46Z-00002-000 | ========================== Introduction: ========================== I am glad to see my opponent is responding in a way uncharacteristic of a moral nihilist (one may wonder if it was for fun or a desperate attempt to salvage an argument in light of a damning evaluation of morality and rights). Needless to say, this is turning out to be an interesting debate. ========================== Contention 1: The Definition of Marriage ========================== My opponent calls this argument valid, though a red herring. His reasoning behind it being a red herring is because the definition involves the conferring of rights. This is no play on semantics, If marriage is humanly understood to mean the union between a man and a woman, then my opponent ought to be arguing that homosexuals should have the same conferred rights as heterosexuals. Why did my opponent not want to argue for civil unions? Whatever the case, it stands that the definition of marriage does not permit my opponent's use of it. "Because of how marriage is defined by many states and the federal government, gays have less rights than heterosexual couples." My opponent has not shown that gays have inherently less rights than heterosexual couples – insofar as both parties have equal right to the legal definition of marriage. My opponent would have to argue for an entirely different right, that is, that people of the same-sex have the right to form legal unions. However, it is not clear that this is a right. My opponent would have to prove the transcendental nature of rights because, if rights are defined by humans, no such "right" exists. ========================== Nature of Laws and Morality ========================== "If I can show that rights exist, then I do have the ground to argue that gay marriage should be legalized." You must not only show that rights necessarily exist but that same-sex marriage is a necessary right. Neither of which you have proved. "It seems quite evident that there are a few moral statements that are prima facie true." If it is quite evident that some moral statements are prima facie true, my opponent would do well in actually listing some that are considered as such. The actions of Hitler were not seen as in moral error by the Nazi's. Hitler's actions, as we speak, are categorically supported by a very prominent minority in the Islamic community (though they also deny the Holocaust's very occurrence). Infanticide is happening as we speak: gendercide takes the lives of hundreds of female babies each day (they are often left outside to die). The rule of Tiglath-Pileser III, is marked by his ripping open the wombs of his enemies. One may rightly wonder, if these actions are prima facie wrong, why in the world did they happen and are still happening in great magnitude? "Given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously ‘good'" This is completely untrue. Complete moral relativism holds that no thing is completely and obviously true, inasmuch as it can very from subject to subject. Furthermore, moral nihilism, a position you are fond of, holds that there are neither good nor wrong actions. "Thus, rights can be grounded." Certainly rights CAN be grounded (though not in the way my opponent has explained), but that is not his burden. He must not show that it is POSSIBLE that same-sex unions are a right, it is my opponent's burden to PROVE it as such. Furthermore, by admitting that we have no idea whether or not it is a right at this point, should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong? ========================== Legal Reasons ========================== My opponent is not leaving me much to refute here, I am not entirely sure that he as even adequately presented a positive case of his own. Nevertheless, my opponent has not refuted the point. Since he believes that there is no VALID legal reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal, then what does he do with the federal Defense of Marriage Act? If it is a legally valid act, insofar as it was legally passed, how is it not a valid legal reason? "laws are inextricably tied in with rights, and if a law were to violate a right, then should it stay? Of course not." It has never been made clear that a right is being violated. It is my opponent's burden to prove that same-sex marriage is a right. But by his own admission, if his moral realism can be shown as true, he has only shown that it is possibly a right. Since, however, his moral realism is sorely wanting, it stands to reason that rights are defined by humans, and if such is the case, same-sex union is not a right. ========================== Should the government be involved at all? ========================== I understand the certain rights that are conferred when one gets married – I am, in fact, married. My contention is that the government has no right to legally recognize relationships – insofar as a relationship is more about love and companionship than tax benefits. Such things as hospital visitation rights can be achieved by different means – a legally recognized marriage is simply unnecessary. My opponent says that he is "certain that the government shouldn't simply ditch the concept of a legal marriage." But that was not my contention. The heart of my contention was whether or not the government has the RIGHT to be involved in relationships in the first place. If so, where is this right derived – is this too, a prima facie truth? ========================== Conclusion ========================== My opponent thinks that my only argument is whether or not objective moral values can exist in a naturalistic system. But this was neither my only argument, nor an accurate representation of the one he seeks to characterize. It is not whether or not they CAN exist, but his burden to show whether or not they DO. I hope my opponent will be able to adequately refute that which he has yet to, and begin to construct a positive case of his own. |
77a5df9b-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00003-000 | homosexuality is a genetic disorder i'm not arguing it is or is not natural, cause you could argue it's the way nature made em. but if homos were functioning they way they were suppose to, they would be attracted to the opposite sex. people with down syndrome dont pretend they aren't disordered. anaology applies to homos. look at their genitals, that indicates they are suppose to mate with the opposite sex and implies be attracted. |
3b40d82b-2019-04-18T14:00:54Z-00005-000 | Abortion should be illegal because it kills a life. How do we know if something is alive? We can tell because it's breathing, so it's functioning. True you could say a plant is functions, but a fetus has the possibility of growing up into a child or a adult. It could have a job, wife, and kids. Your still ending a life. A fetus is just a human being in it's first organic stage, think about it this way if your mother had a abortion when you were still in her stomach you wouldn't be here typing or looking at this screen. You would be dead, so having a abortion would just kill possibility for a human being. The harm could be to the rape victim, but that is why we have therapist. A life shouldn't end because one person doesn't want to have a baby. |
26a99a54-2019-04-18T18:53:37Z-00007-000 | To begin round 2. I will first admit my following statements will probably be poorly suited for a 'debate' though I prefer simple honesty. Thus, in posting this debate I hoped to have my paradigm challenged respectfully, and to be enlightened as to possible points of view that I myself had failed to recognize. I can honestly, and gladly say my opponent has offered me just what I so desperately sought in this debate. So, I offer you my sincerest gratitude for a wonderful first round! Also, as I believe you've already perceived, when I refer to 'teacher' I use it in this debate as an all-encompassing word for anyone that is involved in helping someone to improve their skills in a particular field. Now, onto my rebuttal. As for the argument to my first point. I disagree, what sort of person can grow without self-evaluation, and what sort of teacher can perform well without growth? Have we not all witnessed the older generation's handicap of not being able to properly utilize modern technology. We see many among the older generation quite capable of utilizing technology for wonderful benefits to mankind, while others are completely illiterate in the subject. I attribute this primarily to failure to evaluate, to evaluate both the environment, and the self. Those older ones whom are skilled in technology obviously evaluated it's increasing usefulness in society, and their own uses for it. This required evaluation of environment, and self. A teacher likewise must evaluate the environment, to see what new problems their students are facing, and what new materials are available to teach, and to teach with. Then to evaluate themselves to see if they have within themselves the necessary knowledge to properly guide others with these materials, or if they themselves need to grow. Can a history teacher help their student with a history question from a newly updated text book, if the teacher themself is still relying on knowledge from an outdated twenty year-old text book? No, of course not, they must evaluate themselves, to see that they are not familiar with the knowledge contained in the new text book, and then grow by studying and gaining that knowledge. So that they can answer their student's questions aptly. Leading back to the case of the Drama teacher in the Astro-Physics class. If a student points out a particular paragraph of the text book and asks the teacher to explain it, how will this teacher untrained in Astro-Physics, and never before looking upon that text book be able to explain the paragraph? Thus, this teacher, while being able to 'act' like they know the material, truly does not know it, and cannot help the students in their quest to learn it. Truly one cannot teach, what one does not know. As to point number two, fine points for the con side of this debate! Though, I must point out that these points in fact validate my original one. Let's use the "Freedom Writers" example: what good would teaching them to interpret, and formulate beautiful works of written word do, if the students did not know their 'ABCs', or how to write at all? Obviously, they would need to learn those things first, then, learn the art of formulating beautiful writings. Could Shakespeare have become such a famous play write, had no one ever taught him how to read and write at all? Thus, if a teacher attempts to teach what they believe a student 'should' know regardless of the student's ability to actually learn it, then they are not only failing the student, but insulting the student by making them feel inferior. Yes, a teacher should challenge their students, but challenge them at their own level. Using martial arts as an example. It is fine to teach someone to perform an amazing flying kick, but if you have failed to teach them how to, along with the importance of stretching first, then your student will snap a ham string, and you have, in turn failed the student. Concluding this round, I will offer this: while a teacher's quality is indeed more than mere numbers and words can measure, it is universally true that certain qualities simply must be adhered to, should a teacher actually teach someone. These qualities include the ability to know what they already know, and therefore can teach, and to know what subjects they are ignorant of, and therefore what they cannot teach the student. To be willing to meet the student at their level, to help the student overcome any current weaknesses, through careful instruction, considerate observation, and compelling challenges, to help the student see, and be their best. Concluding with the quality of remembering why they are there, as the con has stated, to help the younger, less knowledgeable to grow, and become better. I will now return this debate to you, my very worthy opponent. |
96b198c9-2019-04-18T13:13:35Z-00002-000 | they are just animals, and by testing it on animals we improve the lives of humans, OUR own. |
a6f6e30d-2019-04-18T12:06:13Z-00001-000 | no they should not |
1d0cb0ff-2019-04-18T18:00:45Z-00004-000 | with in 30 years, 3083 men (53.4%) died. Compared with never smokers who did not drink, men who both smoked and drank 15+ units/week had the highest all-cause mortality (relative rate = 2.71 (95% confidence interval 2.31-3.19)). Relative rates for CHD mortality were high for current smokers, with a possible protective effect of some alcohol consumption in never smokers. Stroke mortality increased with both smoking and alcohol consumption. Smoking affected respiratory mortality with little effect of alcohol. Adjusting for a wide range of confounders attenuated the relative rates but the effects of alcohol and smoking still remained. Premature mortality was particularly high in smokers who drank 15 or more units, with a quarter of the men not surviving to age 65. 30% of men with manual occupations both smoked and drank 15+ units/week compared with only 13% with non-manual ones. Smoking and drinking 15+ units/week was the riskiest behaviour for all causes of death. |
86da9e6a-2019-04-18T18:38:11Z-00006-000 | I believe that Marijuana should remain illegal in the United States because I believe it does have many harmful effects. I also believe that the government does not over dramatize the effects, they only try to emphasize the dangers of smoking marijuana. Pro may state their argument and good luck to ya :) |
86da9e6a-2019-04-18T18:38:11Z-00001-000 | "Marijuana is a very addictive drug; it is not as addictive as many other substances but it still is addictive." Let us quote some of my opponent's sources, shall we? "The majority of pot smokers do not develop a marijuana addiction, but some smokers do develop all the symptoms of an actual addiction after chronic marijuana use." (http://alcoholism.about.com...) "Only about 9% will have a serious addiction" (http://www.psychologytoday.com...) http://www.spiritualriver.com... says that out of all of the marijuana users, only 4% become addicted. As far as recoveryguy.hubpages.com goes, for some reason, I cannot access the server, and therefore am not able to quote it. "The reason that many people do not try it is because they do not have access to it or is too expensive for them to buy it from dealers." Obviously, my opponent does not know enough about marijuana to even argue this point. For only 10 dollars, you can purchase something known as a "dime bag", and it will usually have about 7 grams of marijuana in it. This will usually last someone with a medium to high tolerance for marijuana (me) about 3 or 4 days. In fact, I have known several dealers who will sell marijuana cigarettes (Joints) for only 3 dollars. They are also, at least from personal experience, rather easy to come by. Maybe you aren't in the right places? Marijuana is actually more liberally dispensed, because it is not regulated. "...but not everyone does, and others do not care about the damage they could do to themselves..." so are you implying that the government has to tell certain people how to live? If I want to kill myself, then I should have that right completely. "If you investigate further though you will see just exactly who is growing the Marijuana, it is not the states or the government... Tons of Marijuana is grown and the government is doing a rather crappy job of trying to limit access to it..." Limit it?! They are growing it! Let me direct you to a story that was recently on MSN, and also CBS news. "Americans get medical pot from the feds" http://www.cbsnews.com... As far as the marijuana being a cash crop thing, I am willing to let that go, it isn't a focal point to the debate, any way. "You make an assumption that all teenagers in rehabilitation centers were caught, arrested, and then given an unbalanced choice by a judge to then be forced into rehab..." I never said all, but it is the VAST majority. "...Marijuana could cause depression and feel physically weaker and lazier..." It is odd that you would name depression... "Marijuana Treats Depression Patients have, in numerous surveys and interviews, reported anti-depressant and anxiolytic effects of cannabis. Patients who use cannabis to "relax" may be treating the anxiousness sometimes associated with depression. Cannabis aids the insomnia sometimes present in depression and can improve appetite. Better pain control with cannabis can reduce chronic pain related depression." http://www.opposingviews.com... As far as lethargy goes, it is true that marijuana can cause that. But then again, so does: Alcohol, Hydrocodone, codeine, cough syrup, tobacco, Adderall, Ritalin, Paxil, and many more prescription drugs, but those are perfectly legal, and two are legal for recreational use. "As for the 2012 study, relax I made an honest mistake, it should have been 2009..." Well, then, let's quote that 2009 study, shall we? Cause of death1 Number All causes 2,436,652 Cardiovascular diseases 779,367 Malignant neoplasms 568,668 Drug induced2 37,485 Suicide 36,547 Motor vehicle accidents 36,284 Septicemia (infections) 35,587 by Firearms 31,224 Accidental poisoning 30,504 Alcohol induced 23,199 Homicide 16,591 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 9,424 Viral hepatitis 7,652 Cannabis (Marijuana) 0 Bottom line is, there are plenty of legal substances, (Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco, to name a few.) that are MUCH more dangerous, and have a MUCH higher addiction rate than marijuana, but they remain legal. Plenty of functioning members of society use or have used marijuana for medical or recreational reasons (Steve Jobs, The majority of our presidents, 42% of the American people, http://www.time.com...) and the country hasn't condensed and formed a black hole. 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, (http://www.gallup.com...) and I completely agree. With the facts I have laid out in this debate, I feel like you should too. Thank you for your time! (: |
bbae4f1c-2019-04-18T12:51:49Z-00000-000 | The idea of a free college education sounds great and would be great if it worked. The biggest problem to this theory is the term "free". It may be free to the students, but it is not free for everyone. Someone has to pay the colleges for their expenses. Teachers are not going to work for free and someone has to pay the building costs and maintenance. As we are seeing with "free health care", someone has to split the bill. Maybe some cities or even states can afford to take on this roll in the short run, but the long term costs are going to eventually make this nearly impossible. My first main question to my opponent is: where is this money going to come from? My second argument is that there are programs already available to help with the costs of college. Yes, some of these are loans, which are costly and time many years to pay off, but there are millions of dollars of grant money and scholarships wated each year because people do not apply for them. I am hearing high school councilors say all of the time that there are hundreds of thousands of scholarship money available to any high school senior. The problem is that either they do not know about it or do not go through the process of trying to earn it. I know of one scholarship at our school last year that was worth $2,000 dollars. The person that earned it received it because he was the only one to apply. There are numerous academic scholarships, extracurricular scholarships, and work programs that help with the cost. I am a college graduate who was able to earn my degree with student loans and grants. Yes, I have to pay those loans back, but there are even programs to help with the repayment of loans. Most loan institutions offer a repayment plan based off of your income. This greatly reduces the monthly payment. Many loan companies have loan forgiveness after paying on the loan for a certain number of years. Some places of employment even pay a portion or all of a student loan. Our very own President came from a poor family in Hawaii. Yet he ended up with an Ivy League education, a United States Senator, and eventually President of the United States. Therefore, it CAN be done. |
6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00001-000 | I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument. |
a04d44e3-2019-04-18T17:54:53Z-00002-000 | Time for me to rebut what you rebutted...Murderers could be rehabilitated:We seem to disagree on the matter that anyone who kills deserves death - I would say, in the words of Ghandi, "An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind." Families of the victim would want the murderer dead but that would be from an emotional point rather than a logical one. I think that they deserve another chance. And suppose someone was falsely accused of murder? Then they would get the death penalty which they did not deserve.There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:Teaching moral values would be far more effective. It would not only stop people from killing, it would make them realise that it is wrong. 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. Solitary confinement is unnecessary in the case of a murder but so is the death penalty. I believe that the value of one life is far too important to be taken away just to get even.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:We seem to agree that at east the death penalty should not happen when it is by accident or in self defense. But what if the court didn't believe that it was this way?http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... |
2184df23-2019-04-18T19:38:43Z-00000-000 | My worthy opponent makes no mention that 5 day cricket games are exclusive to the unemployed rich. He also states that the training value of 5 day games is good for normal length games. Perhaps, but practice and drills with proper coaching would help that without the risks of permanent injury and losing a work week to practice. As a coach, I can tell you people learn better rested. " It only contends that Test Cricket is a real test and real challenge for the players and that it should be more played often. It does not say that we should ban other forms of cricket and play only test matches" Not including those who have to work for a living. Access to 5 straight days of playing is for rich kids. It is only the children of the rich that can afford this. A working guy would maybe want to play 3-4 games on his vacation, not one long game and have no time for himself, family. Further more, 5 days for an athlete or normal person is unhealthy. The chance of being injured while fatigued increases as well an increase chance of permanent injuries and dehydration. "Money is only a secondary factor here." Money makes it possible to have the best athletes possible. Better athletes, better game. If you were an athlete that had the choice to play baseball for $1 million a year or cricket for $50,000 year what would you choose? What would most people choose? And I'm going to play a sport that might get me injured and risk my family's quality of life? I think not. For less cash than my talent allows? I think not. Sorry money is a factor. Olympics for example, there's a direct correlation between countries who sponsor their athletes and the amount of medals they win. Speaking of Olympics, who won the gold for Cricket? Oh wait, no one! Cricket isn't in the Olympics. So much for crossing regional, cultural and ethnic lines. So much for being "widely acclaimed". Let's use Lacrosse for an example. They would have three day games on fields miles long. Sometimes it resulted in death. Do you think lacrosse would be more popular or less popular if they still had these games? Obviously, putting their energy into new rules, new equipment and changing the game for the *safety* of the players brings out the best game possible. "It is agreed that the game may have less commoners or viewers of the game , but for the players to nurture their skills, playing considerable amount of test cricket is necessary. Its agreeable that sports should have entertainment coupled with it, but if you want quality sports or quality cricket, you do need to sacrifice a little of entertainment." "Commoners"? I dare venture, by the use of the word "commoner", example; the lowest class in society, that my opponent sees class and social status equated with the ability to play throughout the work week. The effect a cheering crowd has on an athlete is motivation; to do better, to try hard, to dig deep. That's gone with your 5 day games. Quality sports is entertainment for the players and the fans. Slow, tired, injury prone athletes playing a game of attrition does not appeal to this commoner. "Injuries are a part of every game...." The human body can only take so much punishment. You lose your players, who aren't making much money anyways, and how do they support themselves? How does a farmer go back to harvesting when he's got a torn ligament and can't afford treatment? Sure, being hurt is part of the game. But being injured? The pride of athletes do not let them quit. Player will run on torn achilles tendons, broken bones and concussions if you let them. Treated promptly it can heal. But you would have a 18 year old kid play 4 more days with an injury limp the rest of his life because you would call him weak and unfit. |
2184df23-2019-04-18T19:38:43Z-00002-000 | Cricket is a dying game and 5 day games would send it into obscurity. The sport is not spreading, it is not growing, it is not crossing international, cultural or ethnic lines. This means less money for the players. Less popularity, less money for the clubs and athletes, less persons involved, lower quality product. Going back to 5 day games would put cricket in the history books. Who, besides children of plantation owners and British Lords, has the time to play a 5 day game? Not your average student, not your average person. Involvement in the sport would decrease because it's just not feasible for most people to do a 5 day game. Overtime you would lose any new athletes who did not have the social status and the copious amounts of time. Who is going to buy tickets to see a 5 day game? Who is going to watch? The other rich people with nothing to do for an entire work week? 5 day games also make a player susceptible to injury and harm. Permanent injury could result in stubborn players not wanting to take of injuries, or because they couldn't find a replacement who could take 5 days off work on short notice. Run on a sprained ankle all week guy can't compete for another month. Or maybe just limp for the rest of his life. The intensity of the game would dramatically decrease to a sloth's pace. Athletes want action, not attrition. Yes, only the entertainment portion in highlighted, that why people play sports! Action and entertainment! Otherwise, they'd play chess. The subtle nuances of a game, tactical, pragmatic and otherwise can be brought out with adjustments to the rules. Sports evolve over time as we learn, as the players and coaches learn; rules have been changed in every successful sport from boxing to football to equestrian. Change is necessary for the reasons of safety, athlete accessibility and growth of the sport. |
a1558614-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00000-000 | Now, to address his point for one last time… 1 – Time Efficiency Curses! My opponent has got me banged to rights on the small print there. Drat the man! However, the voters will note that the operatives in the control centres don't actually change each set of traffic lights manually, they just monitor the computers and the CCTV cameras. But I'm not going to be pedantic about that and no takey-backsies it is! Still, I may as well go on to negate his other arguments (and possibly take the opportunity to have a sly dig at the police en route). 2 - Anger Management My opponent reckons that posh police cars are not the norm. Well, that's true, the Ferraris, Bentley's, Porkers and Lambos, etc. are usually reserved for senior officers, but the rank and file still get to drive quite tasty motors. The last time I got a tug from the filth I was stopped by a BMW 5-series, a Vauxhall Omega and a couple of souped-up Volvos (although the court was told that they wouldn't have captured me if they hadn't had a police helicopter to co-ordinate the chase, so nothing to be too ashamed of). My opponent still thinks that the police using their "common sense" is a good thing. I disagree. On the aforementioned occasion, if had been clocked by a speed camera I would have got 3 points on my licence and a �60 fine. As it was, I was clocked by the polis who were sneakily hiding in front of a huge artic (semi) when I went past doing a ton thirty. The ensuing pursuit took us across three counties and committed massive police resources that could have been better employed catching real offenders like those drivers who just sit in the fast lane even though they aren't overtaking anything. The net result of this incident was that the police operation cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds and it cost me my driving licence, so nobody was a winner. 3 – Saving Gas Again, my opponent persists that traffic cops are sensible while I insist that computers make more sensible decisions. We'll just have to agree to differ on this one and leave the voters to decide. 4 – Creating Jobs Well my point was that if all you want to do is create jobs for people with learning difficulties, directing traffic is not the only publicly funded role that the state could create for them. They could be employed as labourers building subways or as workmen constructing special lanes for busses and taxis on motorways (freeways) to ease traffic congestion – both projects that would save valuable fuel. 5 – Screaming For some reason, the network I am using at here at work doesn't allow me to view embedded youtube clips, but I assume it was very amusing. I'll watch it later at home if I'm not too wasted when I get in from the pub. In the meantime, here's one of my own. Let this be a lesson to drivers who hog the overtaking lanes. Ha-ha-ha-ha! . http://www.youtube.com... Thank you. |
14dfcc1-2019-04-18T14:02:51Z-00001-000 | OK, now I got your point about how this computing process is 'useful in predictable circumstances', but I believe you are making a big mistake. First of all, the proposal from the FDA read that 92% of medicines working on testing animals doesn't work on actual human body. Moreover, the US ministry of Agriculture has also mentioned that the diseases which human and animals share the curing method is just about a mere 5%. It is a fallacy to think that testing on living creatures are always the best effective way. Second, as aforementioned, I can provide you plenty of tragedies happened just because of the reliability to animal test results. Firstly, a thalidomide. Made by a German company on 1953, this sedative was selling like hot cakes with the ad 'no side effects to animal testings!' while the late 1950s and the early 1960s, until more than ten thosuands of malformed chidren was born from the pregnant women who took that medicine. On the other hand, a clioquinol, which was a medicine for diarrhea, made thousands of blind people, and led hundreds of them to heaven. Lastly, I would like to remind you that this debate isn't talking about whether the animal testing is economically effective or not; we are debating just about the morality of animal testing and how it is justified or not. So, fighting for the last rounds. :) |
dd18e758-2019-04-18T18:38:23Z-00007-000 | So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. Whoever excepts my challenge: good luck. |
dd18e758-2019-04-18T18:38:23Z-00005-000 | Ok. Thank you and good luck. I will copy and paste my introduction since there are many things that we could argue about. So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. In our society, killing animals is just fine because we want to advance it science. There are other ways to advance in science without putting chemicals on innocent animals. The way this thing works is that they use the animal, put it through pain, and then kill it. What a life. Testing on animals can be avoided and instead you could test it on a dead corpse (I'm going to the extreme) or something else. We are killing innocent animals because we can, there are "too many", and we think it's okay. We should not only advance in science, but in love and compassion. We are killing innocent things everyday and yet, everyone feels it's ok. Do you think a homeowner should abuse his/her dog or cat? Do you believe they should be able to do that? So many people go off on the foreign countries because they eat dog or they eat cat or they eat etc., but as a hypocritical country, we do not see ourselves almost doing the same thing. |
b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00005-000 | History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work. |
6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00002-000 | Let's go through Pro's arguments in round 2 and show why they are almost all irrelevant or invalid.EngagementThis entire section begs the question: when would Pro allow for one to be legally eligible to vote?"The reason why youth are often scapegoated as apathetic and disengaged delinquents with no sense of responsibility is because they're excluded from all of these processes."If being included at age of 18 leaves 15 year olds apathetic, then won't allowing 15 year olds to vote leave 12 year olds apathetic? Why should 12 year olds care, when they cannot vote? So they'll just be trained into being apathetic and thus not vote when they reach the age of 15, just as Pro argues that 15 year olds won't vote when they reach the age of 18 because they have become "accustomed" to being not included.Education"15 year olds are politics students."I would argue this is objectively false. A business student, in the last two years of their college education will focus only on business. A high school student must divide their time between social studies, math, English, foreign language, science, electives, etc. They are not political students, this is one small aspect of many things they are expected to learn. Furthermore, the idea that high school students take any of their classes seriously seems highly suspect to me. I think Pro may be describing advanced students in this regard rather than the general population. ChangeThis entire line of arguments are completely irrelevant and highly subjective. Pro argues that "conservatives" (older people) are stuck in their ways and that often time their ways are "bad". Con agrees largely with Pro's points proving this to be the case. However, Pro overlooks two major things: 1) who says that teens who are highly influenced by their "conservative" parents are going to choose anything different and 2) Pro presupposes that teens will make the most moral decisions. The only way Pro's arguments go through for this line of argument is if you already assume that teens make good decisions which I have already proved that they do not.In conclusion, Con has proved with an abundance of evidence that teenagers are irrational and not capable of making logical, cause-effect decisions like adults are and thus should not be allowed to vote. Furthermore, Con has showed that most of Pro's arguments presuppose that teens would make good voters. For Pro to continue these lines of arguments Pro must actually present evidence to suggest that teens would make good voters (which would require refutation of widely held scientific findings). Now let's go through Pro's rebuttal in Round 3. Slippery Slope: “My opponent asks me why 15 and not 5...The reason is simple - we haven't taught 5 year olds politics yet.” So what about 12 or 14 year olds? Certainly they have be taught about US history and thus politics. Pro chooses to attack the “absurd” example of 5 year olds but completely deflects the case against older children (i.e. 12 or 14 year olds). While I agree that allowing 5 year olds to vote is absurd, most older people will agree it's absurd to allow 15 year olds to vote. So what proof differentiates 15 year olds from, for instance, 12 year olds? It certainly cannot be their knowledge of politics since 12 year olds have had 7+ years of US history (or history in general). No stake: Pro makes the extremely wild claim that “The majority of teenagers of that age work”. Con finds this claim very difficult to believe especially considering the evidence of US teenagers, which shows that about 25% of teenagers hold a summer job [8]. Pro should substantiate such claims with evidence. Pro asks the question: “a) if you weren't [dependent] on the government in some way you would have no stake in it, in which case why are you even voting, and b) what does self-sufficiency have to do with voting anyway?” This is totally fallacious. First, aren't we all “dependent” on our government; otherwise what is the purpose of government? The key is in paying taxes. If you are the one paying taxes, then surely you “deserve” to have a say as to what those taxes are spent on. Whether or not it directly benefits you is irrelevant—the idea is that taxpayers have earned the right to have a say as to where their taxes are spent. As most teenagers do not pay taxes, they have not earned that right. Irrational/immature: “Let us, for a moment, pretend that what my opponent said is true. This is an argument for preventing stupid people from voting.” This is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this debate. First, none of Con's evidence suggests that teens are “stupid”. It suggests that they, by no fault of their own, are not developed enough (physically) to make rational, cause-effect decisions. Pro now tries to obfuscate this debate by saying that Con's point is to eliminate “stupid” voters. Quite the contrary—such a requirement would, while being good for the country, be infinitely difficult to implement and enforce (i.e. it would require an extreme amount of resources). However, when there is empirical evidence (as Con has already presented) that suggest you can eliminate irrational voters by restricting the age, this seems to be a cheap and reasonable requirement. “Even if teenagers were disinclined to use their frontal cortex, there's no reason why they can't be trained to do so.” I refer voters to Con's overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary [1, 2, 3, 4] and ask voters to ask the question: what evidence does Pro present to suggest this is possible? Independant reasoning Con feels that there is nothing in this line of reasoning that addresses any of Con's concerns. This is mainly just hypothetical arguments that are directly contradicted by Con's previous evidence [5, 6, 7]. “Even so, my opponent's own data proves 30% of young people vote independantly, compared to 40% of adults in the USA” What is Pro's point? That young people are less likely to be independent than adults? This seems to enforce Con's point. Sources:[1] http://www.aacap.org...[2] http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] http://www.tesh.com...[4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://articles.mcall.com...[6] http://gazettextra.com...[7] http://www.gallup.com... [8] http://www.slate.com... |
6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00005-000 | The right to vote (and I think my opponent will agree) is incredibly important. It carries with it the power to accomplish much, and profoundly affect the lives of millions, including most of those people one knows and loves. It requires a significant amount of responsibility, but it's a civic duty, because justice and good order in our society depends on a proper and well-functioning government. The exclusion of any person from a democratic vote, taken literally, is a message from the government that they're not considered people (democracy meaning "government by the people") and that their opinions count for nothing.There was once a time when society thought that of women. Since then we've seen women do amazing things in politics. The only reason they were denied the right was because the government was mostly controlled by mysogynists. Today, unfortunately, government is mostly controlled by ageists - people who sincerely believe that young people should not have equal rights to old, simply because of their age. It's irrational, because there is no rational link between having an 18th birthday and being qualified to perform this highly important task. This debate is about whether it's justified that 18-year olds with Down Syndrome can vote, but 17-year-old national model UN ambassadors cannot.My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundry.EngagementThe reason why youth are often scapegoated as apathetic and disengaged delinquients with no sense of responsibility is because the're excluded from all of these processes. Why care about who to vote for if you can't even vote? Why learn about government when the government won't learn about you? Why should you have a responsibility to listen to the law when the law isn't responsive to anything you say? These concerns that youth have are legitimate. Excluding youth from politics has naturally created political apathy, and more dangerously, political resistance. That is why youth are often behind cybercriminal activities - they are searching for a meaningful form of political expression. Why? Because over at the government, a bunch of grandparents are making decisions about them without them. 15 years is old enough to work. It's old enough to pay taxes. It's old enough to drive, be a millionaire, and in many countries, to leave school or get married.The harm of political disengagement is threefold. First, it's a harm to society, who miss out on this very valuable subpopulation's opinions. The strength of democracy lies in the diversity of the voices it represents, creating incentives to improve life for all the voters. The harm is that young people cannot vote, and are thus usually excluded from that discussion. This is particularly pernicious when that discussion concerns what to do with young people and their problems, because youth have a whole set of political issues that almost exclusively affect them. Second, it's a harm to the disengaged students, who will usually carry forward that apathy or resistance to their adult years. Translation: higher crime, poorer voting, undemocratic society. And thirdly, it's a harm to the responsibility of society. Responsibility is learned, not earned with age. Schools are very good at teaching teenagers to be responsibile, but do not provide any incentives to. In fact, this kind of political disengagement is a strong disincentive. I don't think I need to justify to anybody that when we don't practice things as we learn them, we're not so good at them afterwards.EducationFor the same reason that business students are best placed to talk about business, or science students best placed to talk about science, so too are politics students best placed to talk about politics. 15 year olds are politics students. Put two and two together, and the point is that youth have the potential to be the most switched-on voters of them all. Youth are a huge group - my quick calculations show that this would increase the size of the voting population by about 10% in my country, and it's probably more in others. They have the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any given election. The net impact is, obviously, that better qualified candidates get elected, provided my premise holds true that youth are better qualified voters. In the long run, education is usually harder to forget if practiced both immediately and regularly thereafter. If nothing else, the fact that not only their social and economic future but also their educational future is at stake would provide greater incentives for them to actually use the resources that are available to them, which given the nature of the educational environment they are immersed in are much more objective and informative. In wider society, this more intelligent discourse brought about by young people can only improve the outcomes of the election.On the other hand, despite the already impressive ability for young people to be politically active, giving them the vote would create incentives to learn more. Being engaged at school is generally hard when half the subjects one is taught bear no relevance to a young person's real life. By contrast, giving them the vote makes everything relevant and important to their immediate life.ChangeAs people grow older, they become more conservative. This is a natural progression because people get used to existing social orders very easily given time. This is why so many old people were upset when they discovered in the early 90s (with the more widespread adoption of the internet and so on) that young people actually had political opinions. But the opinions of young people are quite different, because they reject these social orders and strive to create better ones. This has been happening for thousands of years, and as a result, the social orders have excluded the young from their ranks.This is bad because our society is not perfect, and we want to improve it. Conserving the status quo won't change a thing, but it's what older voters are naturally biased to. That's why we need people who will make change happen. Usually, youth tend to be the most progressive of all demographics (not necessarily in the liberal sense of that word), which is good because it helps our society improve faster and breaks down the social barriers to political discourse, building democracy. Young people also have the greatest incentives to make positive change, given that they ConclusionI'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbritrary. It's conferring no social benefit. It's disenfranchising the young and harming the whole electoral process.I'm proud to affirm. |
a44c7eef-2019-04-18T19:49:12Z-00003-000 | Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal. The main point of a teammate is to work together to take down the opposing team, not so that you have someone to lean on. This is a technicality, but if you do happen to lose, a whole bunch of other people could be blamed. Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing. |
a44c7eef-2019-04-18T19:49:12Z-00002-000 | "Many people argue that one of the main features of a sport IS teamwork, and learning to work together to achieve a goal." There are many more individual sports than there are team sports, so those people would be wrong. Look at the olympics. Wrestling, javelin, shot put, gymnastics, discus, not many team sports. Because the purest test of an athlete is one on one against another athlete. Team sports take away from an athlete. There is no "I" in team, because everyone is dependent on each other to win. In football there are 11 men on the field for each team, it doesn't matter if one or two give 110%, if the other 9 guys slack off you lose, and your labeled a loser by association. Don't get me wrong, I love football, but the quality of athlete you have to be in MMA is much higher. You have to be fast, strong, smart, an expert in kickboxing, wrestling, Jui-jitsu, and have miles of heart. You have so much more you have to use to compete with cause there is nobody there to pick up the slack for you, it is just you and your opponent. "Say, if your theoretical wife had a theoretical baby, which took out of your training time because you're a good theoretical father, you could place blame on others. You could also be injured by another, hampering your display of "extreme athleticism" while competing." Injuries happen all the time, no fighter fights at 100%, if they do they aren't training hard enough. That is the difference between normal athletes and fighters, a fighter would never blame anyone else for their loss. You have to have a certain spirit to get into the ring, or octagon, or cage. A warrior spirit won't blame their wife, baby, or injury. That is just ridiculous. I challenge you to name a contact sport that requires more athleticism. |
9e3e2e75-2019-04-18T19:50:01Z-00004-000 | The belief that imposing stricter gun laws will reduce violent crime is an erroneous belief. If a person is going to commit a violent crime with a gun, how does it make sense to think that stricter gun laws will prevent them from doing so? Does anyone really believe that a hypothetical murderer becomes compelled to murder someone in cold blood, but then stops him or her self because it may be illegal to have a gun at the time? This was the first news headline I read when I logged on to Yahoo this evening (2/14/08): "DEKALB, Ill. - A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun and two handguns from the stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing five students and injuring 16 others before committing suicide, authorities said." Illinois is a state which already has strict gun laws, but that obviously didn't protect these people from getting gunned down. After this incident and the one at Virginia Tech, I reaffirm my position that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that gun laws should be relaxed so law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves in situations such as these. If the government were to take our guns away, or continue to impose stricter gun laws, it will only impede our ability to protect ourselves. The closer the U.S. comes to having full gun control, the closer we approach a time in which the only people with guns are cops and criminals. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for guns. |
2917ab56-2019-04-18T19:06:42Z-00002-000 | "Actually my friend, VORTEX is quite useful. You see, Severe weather warnings improved after the research collected from VORTEX 1 and many believe that VORTEX 1 contributed to this improvement(1)" My opponent does not seem to realize the existence of confounding variables. Correlation does not equal causation. In 1800s Massachusetts, the importation of alcohol increased directly after the amount of Puritan ministers increased. Many believed this to mean that Puritan ministers caused a rise in alcohol. Sound ridiculous to anyone? Coincidences happen. Scientific advancements happen all the time, regardless of extraneous studies. "Also Doppler weather radar was greatly improved with the VOTEX 1 Project. VORTEX research allowed the National Weather Service to provide tornado warnings to residents with a lead time of 13 minutes.(2)" Here is a quote from his source: "VORTEX findings are credited for improving National Weather Service tornado warnings, which now have a lead time of about 13 minutes." My opponent fails to tell us what the lead time was before this study. Could it have been 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 12 minutes? I can say that due to a recent telecommunications advancement, AT&T's 3g network now covers 96% of American soil. I am being misleading because the previous coverage zone was 95%. Moreover, even if the previous lead time was much lower, 13 minutes is hardly enough time to do anything about the situation. 13 minutes does not give one time to move a trailer house. Besides, I think people in tornado-prone areas are smart enough to look outside and see if there are vortexes forming. "A federal research meteorologist, Don Burgess, estimates that the "false alarms" pertaining to severe weather by the National Weather Service have declined by 10 percent.(3)" Again, this is someone's opinion. Note, in the article my opponent cites the meteorologist says that he thinks the study "helped" bring the rate of false alarms down. This hardly seems to be conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of the program. My opponent has left my entire second contention untouched, and I need not restate it now. The resolution is affirmed. |
91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00002-000 | "This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. "Let's look at the Verizon example given" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. "Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality." Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. "dumb internet" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The "stupid" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. "consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use ." Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. "My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs." I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. "consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. "allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. "ISPs are profit motivated." Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. "who owns the Internet." I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. "Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. "the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network." If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. "we inhibit future improvements and adaptations." Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. "ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites." Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... "This is completely false and baseless claim." They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. "ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets." Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider. |
91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00004-000 | "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com... |
6d80c1e2-2019-04-18T19:50:50Z-00001-000 | Alright, I'll give you my reasons why cigarettes should be illegal. First off let us examine the FDA, Food and Drug administration. They are the people responsible for regulating products that come into the United States and deciding whether or not they are healthy. In the past they have stopped products with to much metal content, dangerous additives, dangerous supplements, health hazards in general. You argue that since some people know of the health risk therefor it is fair game however it can be seen of the American public, through the FDA, that some health risks are too great to be legal. Which brings me to my first point, "Cigarettes are proven to be highly addictive, as well as a cause of multiple types of cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, birth defects (which include mental and physical disability) and emphysema." -This coming from Wiki through the CDC and Science Weekly. How do we as a society allow such an entity to exist in its current form? This is a product commonly found with over 100 additives in it that cause these harmful effects, is their no way to regulate some of those additives and decrease the effects? Profit > Life? Onto my second point, it causes birth defects. Even if I agreed with your freedom of choice idea this defeats it. While I don't mind abortion all that much because the baby will never know this world birth defects are quite a different story. To retard, or mentally disable a human being in some way for all of life is simply abhorrent. My third point, second hand smoke. This is once again one of those times when people don't have the choice. Now its dependent on whether someone happens to be smoking around you or not. The symptoms: -Cancer -Ear infections -Throat infections -Nose infections -heart disease -lung problems -asthma -premature birth -allergies -SIDS, Sudden infant death syndrome. Babies occasionally die. -Worsens Bronchitis -Increased risk of Tuberc -Risk of Crohn's disease. -Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children -Wiki I rest my third point on the fact that its the 3rd leading cause of preventable death. My fourth point. We are a society that disallows suicide on a moral level because it is akin to self murder. Yet we as a society allow smoking, in essence a slow and sometimes painful suicide for monetary profit. This is wrong. My fifth point. Cigarette butts are the number one most littered item in the world. They are not biodegradable. "In the 2006 International Coastal Cleanup, cigarettes and cigarette butts constituted 24.7% of the total collected garbage, over twice as much as any other category" - Wiki And with that I suppose I will rest my case for now. I stand open for my opponents rebuttal. |
6d80c1e2-2019-04-18T19:50:50Z-00002-000 | Cigarrets should not be illiegal, even thou I dont smoke and think that it is a terrible habit, the cigarrets companies KNOW this and therefor made a public announment in every package that says that IT IS A HEALTH RISK that enduces cancer. So, the comapnies are giving the comsumers a choice with knowlegde. It is a fair game! |
f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00003-000 | Debate accepted. Now, as Pro has left his opening argument rather short I will likewise do the same with mine (assuming that this round is *not* for acceptance, as Pro hasn't specified the terms.) -->>ArgumentOne major reason why everyone should not receive equal pay is because of the *very* prevalent difference(s) in what people's jobs actually are~~and the amount of experience and educational credit that they require. For example, to become a doctor in most countries, you have to complete at least seven years of studying and an additional three years is often required. However, taking the example of someone who may want to become a beauty therapist~~it will take no longer than two years for them to become fully qualified, and if they exclusively want to work as a manicurist, that can take as little as six months, and no university education is required. A doctor, however, will have a hugely significant sum for their degree(s) and training, and can have debts up to 60,000 in places such as the U.K. once they've completed their education and become qualified. [1.] http://www.theguardian.com...Moreover, they are providing a *vital* service to people. Those in other job sectors (such as the example of a beautician) are technically not. They may be providing a desirable service, but it is not one of demand and necessity. To use Pros example, obviously a doctor should not receive the same as plumber as again, the plumber has not had to attend university for several to ten years and spend such vast sums of money. In addition, they certainly do not have to retain the same kind of information as a doctor. In fact, the two jobs are entirely different. This brings one to main point which is that people should be paid according to skill/education and based on what the job IS. I would agree with Pro in that there is inequality relating to pay and that those in certain jobs should receive more, however, it's senseless to presume that everyone regardless of what the work is should receive exactly the same. For Pro to make a case, he/she will have to answer these following questions: -How would this fixed sum be defined? -Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or a lawyer? -Wouldn't this actually be damaging to the economy in the long-term? Possibly Pro could argue that more people would be inclined to work (but this is assuming the sum is reasonable/decent.), would it not be detrimental if so much was being spent on equal pay for each working individual? -Would this not create a more financially destitute society? I.E~~most governments would not be prepared to give everyone large equal pay, and if so: they would make it a small sum, so wouldn't those who become doctors, politicians, etc. not be able to pay for their university fees? Exactly how would they pay off their debts? Technically, both #3 and #4 (the questions) would ultimately damage the economy and society. But I will leave it to Pro to provide an answer for each one. |
deb2a1a4-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00000-000 | All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots. |
7675874d-2019-04-18T12:17:54Z-00001-000 | Students in the US are subjective to having to learn things that are not needed. It would be best that a student learns the necessities in life too. I'm not saying that the education is bad it's just that the students don't know how to communicate or pay taxes. They don't know the way into making a successful business. They need to learn how to become successful too. |
750c30c7-2019-04-18T12:35:11Z-00002-000 | I am going to be arguing that boxing is a dangerous sport which not only causes severe injury but also encourages violence among youth. I will post each premise of the argument below and a defence underneath. 1) Boxing causes severe damage Andy often deaths to those who participate in it. I think this premise is quite obvious. But just many deaths are there in boxing each year? The website www.livestrong.com had this to say: "In the journal article entitled "Boxing -- Acute Complications and Late Sequalae," Hans Forstl, M.D. and his team of researchers in Germany reported that there have been an average of 10 boxing deaths per year since 1900. Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring". One might be tempted to say that the above figure if ten deaths per year is quite small in conparasent to other sports. Even if that were true the amount of people who die is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is one death(which shows the sport is too very violent). 2) Boxing encourages violence among youth. This premise is also relatively obvious. If kids see their favourite boxer on Tv beating the other boxer to a pulp and being celebrated for it they will want to aspire tonne like their hero. 3) Therefore boxing should not be played. |
ba9c10f1-2019-04-18T15:12:17Z-00002-000 | Unfounded ClaimsSo pro makes the claim that "Americas current education system caters to the needs of a wealthy minority and leaves the majority of Americans cannot afford the education that they need to survive in the real world." This is an unfounded and fallacious argument as basic school education is free and actually mandatory up to a certain age (16 in most states). This type of schooling provides all that is needed to "survive" in the real world. While college is very costly and does help get higher paying jobs this does not necessitate it's type of education for survivial. The initial claim that is caters to the needs of a wealthy minority doesn't actually outline what those needs are or HOW it actually caters to them so it's really not worth responding to. http://c2.com...https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov...This next sentence doesn't actually make sense because of how poorly it's written. I'm sure theres a point in here somewhere but until it's actually apparent I don't think I can even respond to it. Again I've addressed that there actually is no cost for getting a quality education and considering you've done nothing to define quality I can just discredit this as a subjective argument. The Education System Inherently Leads to Nothing More Than KnowledgeSo on to my own personal arguments. Classism: A biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Well by this definition and pros assertion then the school system must be teaching them things to have them form a discriminatory attitude towards those in other classes (Keep in mind that this does not mean LOWER classes this means DIFFERENCES in class so by definition poor people could be classist of higher class people.) right? This is plainly false. School does nothing more than to provide knowledge to students in areas such as English, math, science, social studies, art, and technology. Just take a look at required cirriculums for all these states. Nowhere in here is the class that teaches "Poor People Suck" or "Rich People are Awful 101". http://www.education.state.pa.us...http://www.michigan.gov...http://www.usg.edu...;School doesn't inherintly lead to anything other than the gaining of knowledge. Does going to school help in getting a job and becomming sucessful? Of course! But this does not mean that going to school GUARENTEES you a job. The converse is true also, does NOT going to school hurt your chances of getting a job? Yes but it also doesn't GUARENTEE you won't get one. |
828b1da6-2019-04-18T19:19:49Z-00001-000 | My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you. |
681825ca-2019-04-18T16:50:01Z-00009-000 | All churches should be demolished, they are a waste of space |
88e3521d-2019-04-18T18:53:52Z-00002-000 | If a person wants to end their life, that is their problem. However, If we hospitals use euthanasia, that will lead us down a slippery slope. Soon, we will be using euthanasia on the elderly, mentally retarded people, or anyother people we consider to not be a help to society. It's also against the hippocratic oath, which states, "I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan." |
5cf87748-2019-04-18T16:31:04Z-00000-000 | To recap this debate: Sports are for men and women equally, due to both equality between the sexes and the very definition of sports itself. Furthermore, neither the "nurturing" argument nor "evolution" argument holds any water, both from a logical and scientific perspective. I proved my position through logical, ethical, and factual means while simultaneously proving my opponent's arguments wrong. Clearly, women have not only the fundamental right to play sports (whether it be purely recreational or competitive) but are also meant to play sports as the equals of men. |
cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00005-000 | Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens " nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org....... |
cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00000-000 | America should not necessarily grant Illegal Immigrants citizenship, however they should be granted the right to all educational and health benefits, and legal rights that American citizens receive. According to the CAIRCO's section on Immigration Issues, since the 1986 amnesty, Congress has passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal aliens allowing over 6 million total illegal immigrants to be granted blanket amnesty for a variety of reasons ("Immigration Issues"). Many illegal immigrants have already been granted a path to citizenship and amnesty, and more opportunities should be made available. For example, President Barack Obama reasons a plan to possibly grant the 12 million illegal immigrants that reside in America Amnesty. President Obama explains, "'We are not going to ship back 12 million people, we're not going to do it as a practical matter. We would have to take all our law enforcement that we have available and we would have to use it and put people on buses, and rip families apart, and that's not who we are, that's not what America is about. So what I've proposed... is you say we're going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We're going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line...but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years'" ("PROPOSED IMMIGRATION REFORM"). Simply removing illegal immigrants from the country would be much too costly and a waste of time. Individuals would be ripped away from their families and communities and there would also be negative economic consequences from removing millions of hard-working residents from the domestic labor pool. Instead, a proposed path to citizenship is a better solution. Illegal Immigrants offer benefits to the United states in a variety of different ways. For example, Undocumented immigrants contribute to our economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers, they account for 5 percent of the total U.S. labor force, and at least a quarter of the workers in industries like construction, agriculture, grounds keeping, meat processing, and textile production. All undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes, and most pay federal and state income taxes as well, even though they're not eligible for Social Security, Medicare, or the many other programs their tax dollars help fund. Undocumented immigrants also spend billions of dollars each year, which supports our economy and helps create new jobs. The New York Times explains that 'a 2006 study by the Texas State Comptroller estimated that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's economic output, and more than paid for the $1.2 billion in state services they used by generating $1.6 billion in new state revenues' (Ewing). The contributions of undocumented immigrants would be even greater if they were able to earn legal status. Workers who are not part of an underground economy and don't live in fear of deportation are better able to acquire new job skills and move up the career ladder. That turns into higher wages, more money paid in taxes, and more money to spend to support other businesses. Also, most illegal immigrants are for the most part law-abiding. As I previously explained, there is a greater percentage of citizens who commit crimes than there are illegal immigrants. Immigration is a natural right that is attained at birth. The idea that immigration needs to be authorized by the government goes against that freedom. Immigrants who come to America seeking the opportunity to work and pursue happiness, or those brought here at too young an age to have any say in the matter, ought to be able to stay to pursue those opportunities, thus proving that illegal immigrants should be granted blanket amnesty. Works Cited Ewing, Walter. "Are Illegal Immigrants Good for the U.S. Economy?" The New York Times. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. "Immigration Issues." Cairco. Web. 29 October 2013. "PROPOSED IMMIGRATION REFORM." US Amnesty. Web. 29 October 2013. |
dae5762f-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00001-000 | The 2nd Amendment states that "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.", I do believe it could be changed. The world today is full of craziness so allowing anyone to walk around with bear arms isn't a safe decision. Personally, for me I feel as though you shouldn't be allowed Bear Arms unless you have a registration or license for the gun itself; People such as "Gang Members" only want to have an affiliation with a gun to collect "cool points" or "Street Cred" But doesn't understand the potential danger that armed guns create. Also allowing people to carry guns bring suspicion especially in the eye of the public, children, and etc. |
2bdac55a-2019-04-18T13:14:01Z-00001-000 | When you say me saying marijuana Is a drug is not neccesarily permissible is incorrect. Marijuana is a drug regardless of its effects. Whether it helps or not it is still a drug. It is a schedule one substance that shows its value and where it stands. Some pills used for pain such as Tylenol even though it is not extreme will take away your pain, and not alter your brain. It won't alter your senses or your perception. Marijuana does. The effects are similar not the same, and the effects at completely diffrent. Banning and something being illegal is pretty much the same thing? The argument I made that you spoke on and tried to break down didn't make since. However it is a good thing cocaine is illegal as well as other drugs because it is helping the community and the people whom don't know any better. Sure you can say it's a freedom of choice. If someone didnt know any Better or we young, they would be not prone to try it, and even more at that if it was legalised. Cocaine shouldnt be used, it's not the same as Ritalin or else that would be illegal as well. Cocaine makes you ugly :/. When you say if someone wants to take it for a small reason makes it acceptable, then you are also for recreational use. Because if someone went into a dispensary to get cannabis with a scratch, and got some. That's not medical use. A traditional mindset means that if you are destroying your body to have fun and enjoy at an expense that you are ruining your body is not very smart. Right have fun and get hurt. There are other ways to have fun. But hey their lives and outlooks. I'm sure however grandparents in the older generations were not going out and getting wasted and intoxicated. In the end it is free choice of the states. If people want It that bad, then it will be legalized. The world did people a favor out of education and knowing right from wrong. Just like a mother not giving her obese child a candy bar. free choice right :) However once it becomes legal professionals will regret the decision after seeing the consequences. Maybe the government is doing themsleves a favor to get nor money. Yes it has a big impact on the economy but it is unnecesary. I believe smart people will refrain. Don't indulge in worldly pleasures and you will see the garden -to religious people is this quote. An excessive user does eventually become slow. And this I noticable. Chemical dependency one. It's harder for them to learn things that would be easier to other people. |
cb8d8013-2019-04-18T16:21:41Z-00002-000 | As the say the two words, "social media" Here is the definition is some people would like to know. so"cial me"di"a noun noun: social media; plural noun: social medias 1. websites and applications used for social networking. As you can see, yes these sites are for being social with other people. Although through evidence shows as technology gets bigger (including social sites) people don't talk in person as often because of this much more simple way of communication, but almost all if not all people cannot go through life behind a computer screen, or holding a phone towards their face. If they want a job, they would most likely have to be social in person. People say they can get a job to where they don't have to, for example going into computers/gaming, but believe it or not, that is one of the biggest examples of being anti-social. If they just want to work "ONLINE" without being around other "PEOPLE" doesn't that show that they are anti-social? Some people tend to be shy in person, but say your texting them and they come out of their shell and say things that you wouldn't imagine them to say. I think that is mainly because people tend to be comfortable where they are doing it such as their house or in their room or just somewhere by themselves. Or just if nobody else can see what they and the other person is talking about. So being hidden and comfortable with their surroundings is the reason why some people who are always on the internet tend to act different in person, such as being shy because they were anti social in person. Sources: https://www.mediabistro.com... http://www.talentzoo.com... http://www.forbes.com... |
cb8d8013-2019-04-18T16:21:41Z-00003-000 | Social media media sites like Facebook, kik, MySpace, or whatever don't make us more anti-social. The name "social media" means that it's for the sake of being social. Just because you aren't talking to the person face to face doesn't mean people are less social, it just means they're being social in a different medium. |
c2daa9b1-2019-04-18T14:37:46Z-00001-000 | I do not understand why you would forfeit the round, but I will still post an argument for you to consider for the next round if you do not forfeit that one as well. The question itself is rather vague. I am going to assume that by 2 year tuition you are referring to Community College, and most 2 year colleges offer an Associates Degree. Firstly, I will start off by stating that I do not believe that government should play a part in education, as they are morbidly inefficient with people's money. Secondly, I will state that college is demand based. If there is more incentive to do something, then the cost will go up. Government subsidizes and created incentive to go to college, which means that the cost of the goes up tremendously. Additionally, Community Colleges already cost a very little amount compared to private universities since they are paid for by the state. The education is of course not as good, but it is also not as costly. Thirdly, I do not understand what you mean by "maintains the 4yr. college debt." For whom? If the government decides to go in to private universities and force them to lower tuition then that will violated the Constitution and most likely the universities will sue. If the government goes in to Community Colleges then that will be okay, but they will have to pay more money. Since we are in a deficit, and currently hold very little money, we would need to increase taxes to pay for this lowered tuition. No one should subsidize other people's lives. You should pay for college on your own. If government left college altogether the demand would go down and so would the cost. This is okay, because some people who attend college are rather stupid and drop out either way. |
f1a7f0dc-2019-04-18T16:07:13Z-00003-000 | I. Ban pistols My opponent both agrees that they are used oftenly for homicides, but also the best self-defence weapon as they can be used at all times. He however fails to see that should the same case occur - an armed robbery, where ideally both the robber and the citizens have a pistol, now would become a robber with a bigger weapon, and a civilian with none at all. Is this in any way beneficial? No. Unless my opponent would argue civilians carrying big guns on them at all time. Con has agreed that long guns are not brought into the open by civilians, as it is very unethical. Many civilians would carry a regular pistol around, though. This proves my entire point, given that pistold provide a fair and ethical chance for every civilian to have a self-defense at all times. About hunting: Con again pretends he has won as I stated that there would be a license for huntsmen. He is so stupid to derive from this that every civilian would be able to buy bigger guns: No. In Europe, those bigger guns are simplistic shotguns or bolt action rifles. I thought it would be clear that assault rifles or other guns would not fall into the category of guns allowed to be bought by huntsmen. The list of allowed guns is very limited. Lastly, when having such a license, one is no longer regarded a "civilian" when going hunting: you require to wear a specific uniform so that civilians would not mistake you for people with illegal guns. Huntsmen, in a way, are looked upon like soldiers. This is exactly the system I proposed so that the sports of hunting would not be eliminated by gun control. As for the usage of bigger guns in conflict, you have ignored my actual argument: fleeing is better than standing your ground. I prefer no dead & wounded over a hero who died for his country. And, as I said, letting civilians matter in war only makes problems escalate: there won't be civilians anymore, just like in Japan at the end of WWII. Such a population would have no innocents according to their enemy, and be nuked mercylessly. My opponent has indeed given fine examples of civilians deterring an invasion, yet I have now countered it with the example more fitting in modern warfare - that which includes immediate destruction of all that stands in your way. II. Second amendment I focus upon my reply that there is no difference between homicide and democide, even though democide occurs more often. The fact that the agressor is well-armed does not mean the civilian should be equally as armed. It means civilians should be allowed to carry pistols at all times rather than - as Con chose to argue - facing a ban of their all-time defense weapons. Con must be reminded that he chose to argue the EXACT opposite of what I said: only long guns, no more handguns. And the voter can also read for theirselves Con has agreed that carrying long guns in the open almost never happens, even though it might be legal in some states. Does this mean Con says: you shouldn't be able to protect yourself against your government/agressor at all times? It would seem so. Please clarify your ideas here, con. III. More guns, less crime. But, bigger guns, less crime? My opponent persuades the voters to ignore my arguments again. This debate is really becoming sad. Con, I cannot argue about statistics. It is easy I know it is clear that gun control does not work, as civilians are too stubborn and that will never change. But this is not a debate like that, this is a debate about what an ideal world would look like if all juridical laws would be embraced by civilians. The reason I said you are manipulating here is that your statistics do not count for this debate, as you have nowhere proven that bigger guns in some way would also reduce crime rates. May I remind you that I am not looking for a full gun ban, as I have said last round, You have yet to reply to my points, as this is a point of your case and you have to either drop it, or show that it proves that bigger guns are in some way beneficial. "False dichotomy" These less useful guns fall into that category because, like I have said, you would only want to shoot them for fun: they serve no use for defence as you already couldn't carry them in public. My solution for those who wish to maintain their musket fetish? Get a huntsman license, or fire them at shooting ranges. "Easier for criminals" My opponent talks about the insane criminals buying guns, but somehow finds it illogical that buying a gun in a store is much easier than buying one illegal. If you make it just the slightest bit harder for criminals to get hands on big guns, it would be well-worth it. The fact that civilians would be deprived of these weapons is of no influence at all - except that they will be unhappy about that. Shopkeepers should be deprived of these weapons as well, as a pistol serves enough of a defence. The chances of them taking down a robber -whom is prepared and holds the shopkeeper at gunpoint immediately- are practically zero. As for home defence, my opponent would want to shoot any man intruding his house potentially dying himself before anything would happen. A man who is hidden and would only fire when necessary, is the one who is most likely to kill the intruder. You do not need a long gun to fill intruders with lead. The psychological impact of a gun is the same - be it a big or small gun. Every intruder will be cautious knowing the house-owner has a gun, that is, IF they are brave enough to enter. They know that when a bullet hits them, it's over, no matter what caliber round it was. Civilians tend to think the bigger guns are also the better ones to defend your house with, which is true. That is why long guns are bought more oftenly. Yet the actual difference between a pistol and a long gun when defending yourself is so small, while the amount of people you could kill with it is so much bigger. Assault rifles are a huge potential threat at, for example, markets. Pistols are not. So, in a way, you are giving civilians weapons that are only slightly more lethal for defending, with the chance that one in twenty million would go to a market and gun down a few dozens, who will be left defenceless. My resolution here is that bigger guns become more rare, civilians know how to defend theirselves with a pistol and no risks other than the usual ones (of organized crime) are being taken. "Easier to solve" No such statistics exist, I agree. But my point still holds water since I have given a fair example of JFK's murder being tough to crack. My opponent's "empirically proven impacts" are however time after time not truly relevant to his case. I admire his search for statistics and desire to prove a case in such a way, but you MUST agree that the amount of people who actually own long guns at home does not matter for this debate. We are talking about whether or not the hypothetical world without long guns would be better, regardless and inconsiderate of how many people have actually bought a bigger gun instead of a smaller one. |
a1c467cc-2019-04-18T16:44:58Z-00001-000 | As this is the final round, I will refrain from introducing new sources and arguments. My opponent's only rebuttal to my arguments addresses my refutation of his argument that the rich hire people. My opponent did not use his round to address several of my points. My opponent completely dropped my refutation to his first point that a flat tax system is more fair than a progressive tax system. I cannot further respond to any argument on this point he might make in this round; therefore he concedes this argument. My opponent completely drops my contention that a progressive tax helps reduce income inequality. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent completely drops my contention that excessive income inequality is economically inefficient. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent drops my arguments regarding progressive taxation's benefits to the economy, such as increased revenue, faster growth, and less volatility. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this argument. My opponent concedes my argument regarding that many rich (68% of millionaires) believe in progressive taxation. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent has argued that the rich make the companies who hire people. In making this argument, my opponent drops my arguments regarding the effects the middle and lower classes have on the economy and my argument that the rich still have plenty of profit left and thus still have plenty of incentive to continue hiring people. We must conclude that my opponent drops both these arguments. |
61f97ba4-2019-04-18T16:27:42Z-00000-000 | Extend |
e7c4541f-2019-04-18T19:07:35Z-00000-000 | Unfortunately my opponent has not made any arguments or defeated any of mine. Therefore, I would like to extend all of my arguments from the first round. I encourage a vote for the CON. Thank you. |
efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00003-000 | unless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them. |
4761cc64-2019-04-18T14:27:31Z-00003-000 | In Defence of 2.1: If one says that “not everything that a church does has to be motivated by religion”, he is, in essence, saying that “not every drawing of a square must have four sides” or “not every blue wall must be blue”. The principle is the same: the essence of a church, the factor that distinguishes it from all other groups, as my opponent points out, is religion, so one cannot claim that a church can, insofar as it is a church, cast aside religion. It is impossible, by definition, to imagine a church wherein the members are not religious. Religion is the binding quality of the individuals in the group. This can be shown by a simple thought experiment: imagine two sets of individuals. One of these sets is full of those who believe in the Christian god, while the other is full of atheists. For my opponent’s objection to stand, he must argue that, caeteris paribus, the two groups are both equally deserving of the title of “church”. Such an assertion would be obviously absurd, and the only reason that can be found is that a church must be inherently religious – there are no other factors that could cause this distinction. My opponent tries to make a distinction between “belief” and “action”, but this is a half-hearted attack – it’s clear that believing in something is, in fact, an action in itself, and it is an action which, if it is taken to its logical ends (i.e. if the “believer” is not a hypocrite (in which case he would no longer be able to be considered part of a church, by my opponent’s definition, since he would have shown that he does not truly believe)), will affect future actions (it is obvious that one must act in accordance with their beliefs). As such, belief is not merely a “passive quality” like my opponent is portraying it to be – it is a chosen framework for all mental work done after its adoption. “Not everything that a church does has to be motivated by religion. To say that this is true is to say that a church who supports a mission to rebuild storms after a home suddenly isn't a church anymore, but rather some other kind of organization.“ Either A.), the church is somehow nonreligious (contradicting the definition of a church, making it, in that moment, decidedly not a church), or B.), the church is acting in a religious capacity (i.e. as a church). To say that a nonreligious church can exist is absurd, as is saying that a religious group of people acting with an emphasis on their religion is distinct from a church. Since churches are inherently religious, for a church to act as in my opponent’s example (as a church) means to act in a non-secular manner, meaning that my arguments about the irrationality of religion still apply to every case wherein a church is involved. My warrant for my argument was the definition of a church – the same definition that my opponent has just cited. It, if anything, bolsters my point. In Defence of 2.2: My warrant for 2.211 was given, albeit not explicitly (one need only to infer the implicit parts of the argument). It is as follows: P1) That which is infinite cannot be comprehended Justification: The incomprehensibility of the infinite is implicit in the term “infinite” itself - for one to comprehend the infinite, one must be able to know all there is to know about it, but, since “it” in the sense referring to an infinite is not able to be put into finite terms (as I have said, breaking an infinite into finite pieces is absurd, and, if one breaks it into infinite pieces, the same problems arise), and since the infinite will always have more qualities than one is able to imagine (for this is just the implication of an infinite being), one is unable to know anything about the infinite in its entirety. P2) God is infiniteJustification: Via definition. C) God cannot be comprehended My opponent says that, since many people have come up with theories about God, God must be a reasonable entity. My response is that, if my argument holds water, it is literally impossible for any of those theorists to be right, and, since their fallibility is not impossible while the falseness of a sound syllogism is, it holds to reason that those droves of theologians are simply fools who, no matter what they claim, are really as far from true reason as possible. Being so, my opponent’s attacks are held off. In Defence of 2.3: The definition of “faith” as “belief without warrant” is commonly accepted - Wikipedia defines it as “confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof.“ [1], and the Oxford English Dictionary gives a similar perspective, defining faith as “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” [2] Since adherence to reason is the only route to certainty (A is A is surely a certain proposition, and it is certain that A =/= A cannot ever lead to truth), reason necessarily leads to warranted beliefs. Since faith is literally defined as “belief without warrant”, faith and reason, by definition, cannot coexist. As I have said, “Faith requires the absence of reason, and therefore insofar as one has faith one rejects reason and vice-versa” - this is clear just by looking at the definitions of the terms. If my opponent advocates the use of faith (for example, in “practical” scenarios), then he is rejecting reason (as proven above), and, therefore, I have no need to address his points - if he is right, then anything I say cannot be judged to be more reasonable than anything else, since reason is rendered impotent by his case, and this also applies to his case: his case cannot be more reasonable than mine, ergo he has negated his own claim to victory. If he operates under the framework of unreason, then he has already undercut himself in any rational debate, and no rebuttals are needed. On Con’s Case, First Half: My opponent has yet to explain how my case reduces autonomy. The resolution makes no reference to disallowing churches to participate in politics; the resolution only states that churches should not be involved in politics. Even if I affirm the resolution, it does not necessarily follow that I’m advocating laws against churches being involved in politics, much like how a Libertarian may argue that one should not regularly inject heroin while still holding that one should be free to do so. There is no violation of rights here since I have offered no plan to force churches to conform to my ideals - I have only justified said ideals. In addition, if my case holds and faith is held to be irrational (and therefore not beneficial), choosing to have faith in the power of faith cannot produce any benefits, regardless of whatever autonomous entity chose to do so. Given that I have proven my case beyond a shadow of my doubt, it is the conflicting assertion given by my opponent that must be discarded out-of-hand. On Con’s Case, Second Half: Again, I have only maintained that the noninvolvement of churches in politics is a theoretical ideal, not that it should be imposed on the country by the Government, nor that it should even be put into practice voluntarily at the current moment (as a result of the irrationality that already pervades the system). My opponent is essentially asking me to choose between theocracy and tyrannism. This choice is entirely artificial, as the nonexistence of religious people in the world does not necessarily entail anything outside of itself. The resolution is over whether churches should vote or not - it does not specify “in the current system”. Taken in the abstract, the resolution is only referring to churches generally - there are only two factors to consider here: abstract politics and abstract churches. My opponent’s attempt to concretize the resolution fails for this reason - much in the same way as the statement “It is good if everyone is happy” is not disproved solely by the fact that the status quo is not one of universal happiness, just because the removal of the Republican party now would result in devastation does not mean that the removal of the Republican party in itself is a bad thing. Conclusion I have defended every link in my proof, and thus it is necessarily valid (as even my opponent admits that the conclusion will follow from the propositions if each is supported properly). I have also disarmed my opponent’s misinterpretations of the subject of the debate. As such, I have fulfilled my burden of proof, and my opponent has yet to start to negate my position. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... |
69711cc0-2019-04-18T16:21:42Z-00000-000 | I must apologize for my tardiness in posting this argument but I have been busy with work and school. Lets recap this debate.. What was it about? The point of this debate was to determine if Veganism is bad for your health. I Have provided evidence that shows that veganism helps provide glycemic control, and may even help control pain in people with auto immune disease. I have seen and I believe my opponent has conceded that it is possible to gain all of your essential nutrients threw a vegan diet as well as supplements. My opponent has argued that my sources are guilty of “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” However the study never claimed causation. The studies talk about a strong correlation between veganism and glycemic control and pain in some autoimmune disorders. |
69711cc0-2019-04-18T16:21:42Z-00002-000 | 1) You can find all of your necessary nutrients in vegetables, fruits and supplements[1]. The price of the food or the supplements does not make this diet any less beneficial than an omnivorous diet. 2) There are vegan foods that have proteins, both simple and complex. Vegetables such as beans and Nuts such as peanuts and almonds can provide enough protein for your body in order to repair any tissue damage[2]. 3) My last rebuttal is your source. This author of this website does not have any authority on nutrition. He is a medical student, not a doctor, and not a dietician[3]. On top of that a simple Google search shows a lot of what he says is not true. For example the first tip “The only good food sources of B12 are animal foods like meat, fish and eggs.” That is not true Fortified Soy and Bran have plenty of B12 in them[4]. He selectively chooses the articles he uses for his research. For example he makes the claim that 92% of vegans had a B12 deficiency and sites an article off of Kager.com. If he would have finished reading the abstract of the article he would have read “ However, their complete blood count values did not deviate greatly from those found for nonvegetarians…”[5]. In the last turn I will post my arguments for your rebuttals. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [2] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [3] http://authoritynutrition.com... [4] http://www.healthaliciousness.com... [5] http://www.karger.com... |
3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00002-000 | Birth control is a "free will" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of "free-will sexual intercourse" and "free-will reproductive suppression" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill. |
810275d2-2019-04-18T19:18:13Z-00002-000 | I negate: "Resolved: Public High School students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exams in order to graduate" I accept my opponent's definitions, but point out that if he addresses definition-based semantics in his next speech, he will not only be kicking his AC arguments, but bringing up a new constructive argument, which you would have to ignore. My opponent proposes a value of social welfare, then turns and says we ought to value justice. Since my opponent only explained and supported justice, I will address this. Do not let him get up and make a moving target argument in the next speech. I ask, why is justice relevant to the round? To "create a fundamentally sound Society"? This is the only link that my opponent makes in the round. You ignore this because he has no link, making it impossible to impact to. I, as the negative, would not be able to, whereas he could just provide a cop-out argument stating how his Value and Criterion are basically the same thing, thus linking them, which you must disregard. I propose the alternative criterion of Social Welfare, being relevant to the topic. This means that whatever is best for high schoolers, and in turn, society, ought to win the round. I don't think you can get any more fair and clear than that. Also, his criterion is as delinked and blippy as his value. In the first observation, he hints at my proposed criterion of social welfare through high schools: "which avenue of debate will better the students of our society in the United States?" in which I completely agree. But then he goes on to ramble about how we must acheive a just society, and how we must link to justice, but NEVER TELLS YOU WHY. To simplify the standards, here's what we should do: Use justice as the value, since we want what is most just and fair (aspects of Social Welfare) and everything for society. Use my criterion as such, since it links to justice, and is easily attainable by my opponent. I want the standards to be fair and non-semantic, so I propose the aforementioned. This is not difficult for my opponent to link to. Moving on to the argument. His solitary contention argues that SEE (Standardized exit exams) are unfair, because the tests only evaluate the left side of the brain. 1) He provides no link between the idea of "split brain" science and the left side being exceptional at tests. 2) Even if he did, it doesn't matter. He would be cold conceeding to the concept that tests accurately measure the left side of the brain correctly, which (TURN) means that this is a reason to Negate. Since the left side of the brain is correctly measured, SEE's accurately measure student's activity. 3) The negative impact he provides is irrelevant even to his standards. Instead of showing an inequality on a societal level, the worst he proves is that one side of your brain is tested more than the other in school. 4) His claim and his warrant have nothing to do with each other, disregard his tagline. Now, I present a TURN that impacts to his repeated Rawl-based standards. "Exit Exams ARE egalitarian" Brookings 2001: "A change in standards thus leads to gains for two of the three groups--those at the top, who graduate, and those at the bottom, who would not have graduated anyway. The losers are those in the middle, who would have graduated under a less stringent standard, but who now fail. Those individuals suffer from being pooled with a group that includes those less skilled than themselves (those without the diploma) instead of with those more skilled than themselves. No efficiency loss has occurred in this pure sorting model, only a distributional effect stemming from the individuals' relabeling. Do these losses constitute a compelling case against higher standards? The answer is no, for two reasons. First, in terms of the narrow choice between high and low cutoffs, a high cutoff does not necessarily lead to less egalitarian outcomes. The redistribution is from the losers in the middle to the winners at both the top and the bottom. Those with the most egalitarian preferences (so-called Rawlsians, after the philosopher John Rawls) place the highest priority on raising incomes at the bottom, so they should favor a rise in standards. The equity implications of higher standards are not limited to those who are at increased risk of failing but include those who would fail in any case, and whose stigma stands to be reduced." [1] What this card explains is that removing a SEE hurts the majority of students, since the only winners in a low-value diploma are the utter failures who couldn't pass the exam, and the ones who would never have had an issue passing it. Furthermore, he explains how it is a contradiction to the Rawl theory of equity that my opponent endorces. This alone is reason to Negate. As for case safety, I can imagine that smart LD debaters will be reading my every word. This is why I won't present an NC, and won't perform with the entirety of my skill. I promise this to all plagerizers: If you want to steal my words, my cards, my case, you will never survive, and I will destroy you in-round. Good luck and thanks to my opponent. [1] Incentives and Equity under Standards-Based Reform. Julian R. Betts and Robert M. Costrell. Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001 (2001) 9-74 |
638d406b-2019-04-18T16:47:38Z-00004-000 | I look forward to debating with you. Animals are generally treated well and humanely during experimentation (Animal Welfare Act of 1966). I question your opinion argument "If we use animals for experimentation, then they will all die". How would that happen exactly? We are humans and we are at the top of the food chain so that makes us de facto superior. We wish to sustain ourselves and for that to happen we need to dominate the other animal species, but we should be humane about it as well. |
ac53643e-2019-04-18T15:28:13Z-00007-000 | Amina Amjed The Case for Animal Rights Round 1 1.The use of animal for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.We should regard animals just as we regard those who are unable to defend and protect themselves such as children, the disabled and the elderly. 3.The abuse of animals for science, for sports, for agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We, as humans, must stop treating animals as things and treating them as beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. 5.It is true, that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and requires extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 6.The idea of animal rights has reason if not just emotion. 7.We have a direct duty to ensure safety of animals from brutality, as we do to our children and to those humans around us who are incapable of helping themselves. 8.We should not overlook animals because they do not have the characteristics and components of a human being. 9.Using animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" purposes is brutal and against morality. 10.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 11.Some would try to justify the use, therefore abuse, of animals by referring to what is known as contractarianism. 12.Contractariansim is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 13.Animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be a part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 14.However, this is true for children as well. Children cannot consent to a contract without the permission and supervision of their parent and/or guardian. Just so, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 15.Theories such as the cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been presented to justify the protection of animals but have not proved to be entirely effective. 16.Each view is flawed is some way to segregate animal and the rights that should be given to them. 17.By taking the inherent value approach, it is evidently clear that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for others. Your value as an individual would not be regarded by what you can do for me and in return what I can do for you. 18.In that same respect, an animal is considered an individual who should be treated with the same rights as me and you regardless of what they can do for us. 19.We should not use and/or abuse animals just because by doing so, it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual we inherently subject ourselves to condone acts of cruelty. 20.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 21.It is true, that animals lack many attributes of a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 22.However, it is also true that there are some humans who are incapable of doing some of the things that I mentioned above but we do not devalue them as an individual or say that they are not human. 23.As an individual, be it a human or a monkey, we feel things, want things, have certain expectations, we feel pain and excitement, we feel frustration and we also suffer from untimely death. 24.All who have inherent value have it equally regardless of them being human animals or not. 25.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities. 26.In regards to animals that are used in the field of science, there is proof of devaluing these animals by testing on them routinely as if their value is reducible by their usefulness to others. These animals are treated without any respect and in doing so the rights of animals are violated. 27.In the same sense, farm animals are kept in stressful close confinements or in isolation which causes them pain and suffering. This treatment, rather mistreatment of farm animals is rooted in the view which lacks the acknowledgement of animals as individuals with independent value. Instead they are viewed as resource for "humans". 28.Killing one human for selfish means does not satisfy our moral values than why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 29.A right, properly comprehended, is a claim that one party may exercise against another. The victim of this claim can potentially be a person, a community, or even all human kind. 30.It should than be understood that rights in general are in every case claims or potential claims within a community or moral agents. 31.Rights can be defended or claimed by those beings that can make moral claims against one another. 32.Human can make these moral choices whereas animals cannot. Animals are not beings that are capable of practicing or responding to moral claims. 33.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. If that were true then we would have to agree that humans who are brain damaged or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 34.Non-human mammals have the same fundamental rights as a normal mammal to not be harmed or killed. 35.Those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals, have inherent value. 36.Animals have the ability to feel pain, satisfaction, need, pleasure, disease and death, just as any human being does. 37.Therefore, I argue, that animals, such as monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. 38.Rights of animals should be respected. 39.The use of animals in science; commercial animal agriculture; commercial and sport hunting and trapping should be indefinitely terminated. |