_id
stringlengths 37
39
| text
stringlengths 3
37.1k
|
|---|---|
6887efed-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00007-000 | We spend ten years of schooling and several more years of our precious life in college, and then one fine morning someone comes and says that this is not required for success. When asked for proof, they say 'look at Bill Gates!' But success isn’t a just matter of building a huge firm from scratch and making billions of dollars – by that definition, only a tiny number of people in the world could be considered successful. No, success is about making the most of your talents and abilities, and that requires dedication and study in academic institutions that will stretch you intellectually. |
6de4c111-2019-04-19T12:46:27Z-00004-000 | Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a ca... |
87ce9e36-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00004-000 | We are mortal: we are all going to die: does that mean we should all kill ourselves and never attempt to prolong and improve our lives? no it does not The system of testing exists for a purpose, which it may not serve 'perfectly' but serves to an extent. Tests can be improved and cheating can be reduced. Tests with certain test-takers cheating, are better than no tests at all. You might as well not sell anything because some people steal. It is unfair that students who do not cheat and vye for a fair assessment of their abilities and standing on a subject, should be deprived of being tested because of a few bad eggs. There is a difference between 'improvement' and replacement. Testing/exams can not be replaced the conditions in which they proceed are different for different exam centers and different students as you point out that doesn't mean testing should be chucked altogether. efforts can be made to make stringent and similar test-taking conditions( a faulty computer can be fixed that won't stop it from gettting faulty again) for everyone everywhere however to expect perfect results is irrational. It is not tests themselves that allow cheating it is the conditions in which they are conducted. You cannot say that a T.V lying on the road then getting stolen, is responsible for getting robbed. It is the condition(sitting on the road, entirely not the T.V's fault) that leads to the crime/theft. |
5af4c3ec-2019-04-19T12:48:10Z-00010-000 | Studies continue to emphatically expose the adverse effects of cell phone radiation; without refutation. [[http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cell-phone-damages-crotch.html]] Tell that to all those crack callers I keep getting missed calls from. Badgering strangers or not is possible on both the internet and on a mobile. The difference is privacy policies and Cyber-laws protect the average internet browser; whereas, there are no protections for those being harassed on their cellphone. And no I've tried the add to screen list option; the calls still come but the phone doesn't ring and calls I 'do' want to receive are impeded. all you need is a phone number; some creeps even dial in random numbers and then wait and see who picks up. Cell phones are even more versatile than public payphones for those who change Sims often; so they don't worry about call tracing. This is why cellphones are central to crime and terrorism. Demo: Get disposable phone; insert disposable Sim Call anyone from anywhere.(fellow criminals, stalker target, person to blackmail etc) Give phone to complete stranger or throw it in a trash bin; from which any random person can pick it up. Avoid being traced. |
5af4c3ec-2019-04-19T12:48:10Z-00003-000 | "A person is in an unhealthy phase of obsessive and constant cell phone use. This may be caused by the newness of the device or by an emotional problem that makes them use the cell phone to isolate from others who surround them. Or, it might be that the increasing use of the cell phone by everyone else causes the person to get one of their own."[[http://www.helium.com/items/1915501-why-cell-phone-are-an-anti-social-invention]] More often than not; people use cellphones to pull themselves away from a crowd or ring themselves to get out of an uneasy situation/conversation where they have to confront themselves emotionally. Text has no tone; breaking up by thumb-text is so much easier than a face-to-face or phone conversation where you hear the crying and wailing. Real social interaction which forces you to develop an emotional conscience is thus inhibited. |
92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00011-000 | With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal "War and Peace Report," and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is "the first amendment issue of our time." With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. "With great power," says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "comes great responsibility." That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be. |
92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00021-000 | Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. “Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.” [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]] |
e0478671-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00011-000 | Stopping or slowing down a customer’s internet connection is an infringement on their freedom of expression and fundamental rights. The Open Rights group have claimed these new plans are a “curtailment of people’s freedom of expression.” [[http://www.openrightsgroup.org/]] |
9e069680-2019-04-19T12:45:55Z-00020-000 | Parents and policy-makers can use the data from national measurements to provide frameworks for improvement strategies. Standardisation offers targets against which poorer-performing schools can set themselves. |
71c91f48-2019-04-19T12:47:28Z-00009-000 | True, sports have has an increase on the profits and sponsorship but that ios part of the normal evolution of any activity and it's not alarming, However, we think that those few athletes that gain those huge profits are those athletes that before that have had great sporting results. Those arthletes that have huge contracts have been those with great results during the last decade (such as Tiger Woods or Michael Schucmacher). To think profit comes before results is false. |
806f129c-2019-04-19T12:45:03Z-00001-000 | Negative effects on Policing. |
5978c15d-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00000-000 | The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at ... |
e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00009-000 | Condoms, while better than nothing, should not be promoted so much in schools. It is one thing to inform children of their options and a complete different thing to promote safe sex as a lifestyle. By making the idea of safe sex more attractive to teenagers you are also making sex itself more attractive. You are in a way telling them that they can be safe having sex and this has an encouraging effect to start. By making them feel that by using these products they are protected from any risks it only makes them more eager to start having sexual relations. They are physically not prepared for that and the medical reasons for why they are at greater risk is specifically related to females. A 15-year-old girl has a 1-in-8 chance of developing pelvic inflammatory disease simply by having sex, whereas a 24-year-old woman has only a 1-in-80 chance in that situation. And pills and condoms are not as effective with teenagers, mainly because teens are more apt to forget to take the pill or to tear a condom. Between 9% and 18% of teenage girls using the contraceptive pill become pregnant. |
7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00028-000 | While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00029-000 | It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00033-000 | Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00018-000 | Sometimes I am prepared to pay 'up to 1,000 times the price of tap water' for the convience of not having to carry water around with me. I can just buy a bottle when I need it and dispose of it when I'm finished. I'm prepared to pay a premuim for that. http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS446US446&q=water+gallon&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=2219514242572637643&sa=X&ei=BImVT42xEIiw6AHVq8y2BA&ved=0CJ0BEPMCMAA 1 Gallon for $1. not a bad price... |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00023-000 | It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00031-000 | In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00020-000 | The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are "mineral" or "spring" waters. For a water to possess the name of "mineral" or "spring" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000 | Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because "we don't need it" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need. |
39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00006-000 | Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway |
8d63ccbc-2019-04-19T12:45:45Z-00020-000 | Regulations already exist to prevent foreign investments that might compromise national security. Other than this it would be unfair to discriminate against certain classes of investors. Wealth-creating capitalism relies upon investors seeking to maximise the value of their investments. Without voting rights or the possibility of exercising majority control of a company, SWFs would be unable to ensure that managers were working hard on their behalf, allocating resources efficiently and being held accountable for their decisions. |
2bb90bda-2019-04-19T12:47:20Z-00002-000 | Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the... |
cc393e78-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00021-000 | What kills the most is Drinking you have Heart problems, Liver, Cancer, Drunk Drivers,Talk about health, put the no smokers sign up so smokers can have rights too, Keep them out , We are old enough to make what life we want put a baned on them or build a bubble to put all the none smokers in or build places only for smokers keep signs up to keep none smokers out . see how they like it, THEY SAY WE HAVE A FREE CANADA ? WHERE thank you joanne bc |
7b97e682-2019-04-19T12:47:05Z-00011-000 | The NHS is undoubtedly in crisis. It has been argued that the standard of treatment for patients is too poor to justify it’s continued existence. What’s more, the population of this country is ageing, and will pose an even bigger burden on state funds as time goes by. This requires immediate solution and immediate investment from the private sector. If this is not achieved, people will be obliged to take out private health insurance anyway, in order to ensure they receive adequate treatment. |
6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00010-000 | In 2006 the NHS spent more than £8bn on medicines in primary care, representing a 60% real-terms increase in the last 10 years (3). Drug prices are merely increasing with inflation and that is out of the drug companies’ control. The government is merely responding to inflation and cannot do anything to change the economic status of our country and do try to reduce prices as it is. (3) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=2998&edition=1&ttl=20080819174434 |
6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00001-000 | Students who are at University and are over 18 years of age have to pay for their prescriptions. A lot of students cannot afford, for example £7.10 for eardrops for an ear infection when they have to get loans in order for their maintenance and tuition fees, and also money for food and other resources, such as books. What is more important- studies or medicine? It is awful when you suffer such regular problems as cystitis for instance, and have to get medication in order to treat it. Imagine if this occurs every month. How are you supposed to support yourself? When you ask if you can get support in the form of dentistry appointments, doctor’s prescriptions and eyesight tests, you are usually expected to give half of the money that your parents give you for food on such things; this is ridiculous for the full-time student who barely has the means to support him/herself. |
6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00015-000 | The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing. |
6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00017-000 | Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes £100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer. |
e3ed0cd8-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00002-000 | Potential for abuse of power |
7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00014-000 | Many people have sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding vaccines in \ general. These individuals believe that God created the human body as a \ temple, and that the body should not be destroyed by injecting a virus into \ the body. By making vaccination compulsory, people's freedom to choose is curtailed and that is an infringement on human rights. In any case, it doesn't matter if a few people choose not to be vaccinated, as if the large majority of the population is protected from a disease, there will be too few carriers for it to become endemic, so the risk to those opting-out is very small.\ |
7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00007-000 | Prevention is better than cure, and a vaccine is the best way to prevent an outbreak of a disease or to reduce its negative effects. Vaccinated people become immune to a certain pathogen and do not develop a disease. Although there are occasionally side effects, these affect only a tiny number of people compared to the protection offered to the vast majority. |
7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00002-000 | Compulsory vaccination leads to a better health situation in a state. The child mortality rate is l... |
4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00043-000 | violent video games never put anyone in physical or mental danger there harmless fun besides if parents didn't want there child playing violent video games they wouldn't get them in the first place you said yourself the problem is the parents. Stop blaming the media. I grew up plying said "violent" video games and watching "violent" movies and even wrestling. Listening to "violent" music. Im not a violent person, or an angry person. I was always told the difference between "entertainment" and "reality". The Root cause is the parnets lack of teahing. If you do not eliminate the root cause, you do not eliminate the problem. |
4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00032-000 | There's a difference between influence/effect and mind-control/indoctrination. Though the gap can be and is bridged all too easily and frequently. Studies have revealed [[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/unreal-hormones-males-treat-games-as-social-competitions.ars]] [[http://www.killology.com/gitarticle.htm]] [[http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T101200.asp]] the dangers of hype hormones, the release of which is induced by viewing violence, too much exposure also desensitizes players to acts of violence, this can lead to mild to severe mental and physiological problems. [[http://www.impotence-guide.com/psychological-impotence.html]] [[http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Psychosomatic-Disorders.htm]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo]] [[http://childrenshospitalblog.org/are-violent-games-more-damaging-for-children-with-a-central-auditory-processing-disorder/]] [[http://www.positivechoices.com/category/tags/violent-media-use]] [[http://www.healthmonitor.com/news/violent-media-can-desensitize-minds-young-males]] [[http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm]] Violent game exposure causes, at the very least a bullying aggressive personality with a self-damaging hyper-competitive blood lust. The idea that mere 'influence' would make us 'experts' is questionable, at best. However, the adverse effects of violent media are known without doubt. Please read/watch 'Prozac nation' if you're still confused about a significant rise in mental problems among young people in parallel with the popularity of violent media and loosening censorship laws. [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0236640/]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QWM_Kni6l0]] |
4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00017-000 | For one, the parents do not have to buy the game. and when they do sometime they don't look at the ratings of them games.they could accidentally end up buying a 5 year old a really violent game.children are like sponges they absorb what they see, causing them to put it into actions. |
4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00002-000 | Think for a minute, and take a look at all of the online games and games that have multiplayer capability. In fact, take a look at these links: http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html http://learningames.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/are-studies-related-to-video-games-and-violence-biased/ http://www.science20.com/news_releases/video_games_and_violence_are_studies_biased http://videogames.procon.org/ http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/04/12/comparing-violent-crime-to-violent-game-releases http://videogames.procon.org/sourcefiles/Olson.pdf http://www.theesa.com/facts/violence.asp http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/VideoGames.html http://www.geek.com/forums/topic/violent-video-games-do-not-cause-violent-people http://www.upgradereality.com/video-game-violence http://www.video-games-for-healthy-living.com/5-reasons-to-let-your-kids-play-video-games.htm Nadia999 If I had a child, I would let him/her play computer games as I believe it includes some important advantages also. There are some online strategy games which would help them think, plan and decide. For example Rush Hour or Reversi (Othello). In Rush Hour they need to find the obstacles and try to solve them one by one. If adults teach them to do the same in life, computers are a chance for us. They attrack our children's attention. I am an English Teacher and let my students do their homework on computer, I send them their homework as a text message. We cannot turn a blind eye to this fact: They love technology. We cannot seperate them from technology's innovations. The fact that these children became addicted means they were outcasts to begin with. Secondly, when I played video-games/Atari/Sega/play-station/X-box, I had people to play/compete with. Most games of this sort are competitive and do anything but isolate young ones. Getting the latest gaming console/device only 'adds' to a child's popularity. Technically this is a 'no point' and 'withdraw' is a yes point.This calls for a traditional game: 'swap' :P Competition is the core of a global capitalist society, if kids are not going to learn to adjust to and impose each other's superiority from video games, they'll learn from somewhere. Life is a repetitious infinitely looped struggle, the fights you fight today are the fights you fight tomorrow; sometimes you're up and sometime you're down. If video games are a mechanism that help young people cope with the Darwinism of our Hobbesian zeitgeist then good. |
4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00025-000 | Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. |
e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00042-000 | You people who believe that animal testing is right, obviously dont think about how the animals feel. Animals suffer and die from this animal testing that you horrible people believe is right. Would you like to be tested? Exactly, and neither do the animals so i think you should just rest your case already because i have proved all you people wrong. I would like to point out to the person who wrote the above statement that the world we live in was created by dominating all other creatures. Animal suffering at the hands of humans is as old as the day is young. Whether or not you agree with animal testing, know that simply by being a human being (and not isolated from society living alone on subsistence hunting/farming) you are contributing to the suffering of animals. Just because it's not in front of your eyes, doesn't mean it's not there. |
e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00027-000 | Yes it may save human beings, but how important are we really to animals? technically we are animals and we should respect that. we can test new drugs on willing humans, becqause if they want a drug for them then they shouled offer it up, not a innocent animal who doesnt hae a say in it. Its like a dog would test you for a new treat, how would you feel about that? Humans are not dominant over all other species. Yes, we may have advances and more knowledge of the world but that makes us no more important. |
e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00035-000 | I for one would not like to be used for testing, that's why animals are used. Very simple. As for not having a conscience, most people don't think twice when eating an animal or a by product like milk or eggs from an animal that has been kept in cramp conditions having a poor life. |
e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00020-000 | According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, 'animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.' Without such testing, most, if not all of these procedures that save thousands of lives and elevate the pain of millions of people would simply not be possible. Just a few of the many named examples of the advances made possible through animal testing include [source: Foundation of Biomedical Research]: Smallpox eradication (testing with cows) Polio eradication in the developed world (mouse & monkey) Availability of insulin (fish & dog) Tetanus vaccines (horse) Rubella vaccines (monkey) AIDS treatment (monkey) |
e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00047-000 | It has allowed for the advancement of science and new drugs to be developed (HIV Retrovirals and Cancer drugs). However, huge advancements in science came about from (awful) experimentation on Jews during WW2. Were these worth it? It should be the same argument for animals. Every creature has the right to live, dignity and a pain-free existence. |
9f203748-2019-04-19T12:46:11Z-00003-000 | “Change for Life” is the Government’s latest rhetoric to try and deal with obesity and unhealthy life styles. But who is listening? Those who want to eat healthily are, those who cannot be bothered are not going to pay attention to a colourful ad campaign. There has been so much coverage on obesity now that anyone who has not changed their lifestyle is unlikely to do so unless it is made mandatory. |
413eb840-2019-04-19T12:45:04Z-00010-000 | Tax cuts lead to market stimulation |
f55b3008-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00000-000 | Will these be glorified like cigarettes and alcohol to our children by advertising? |
39d7bc1-2019-04-19T12:46:00Z-00004-000 | While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is ... |
f9c5be29-2019-04-19T12:46:08Z-00006-000 | People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that... |
dc65dc8c-2019-04-19T12:46:46Z-00001-000 | It adds to sports value |
abf7ee52-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00021-000 | The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. A body of medical evidence is building up to suggest that even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to diseases such as Parkinson’s. Although the incidence of injury is much higher in sports such as basketball, rugby or riding, the risk of serious injury in boxing is far greater. In fact, that risk is so great that boxing should be banned. A ban, quite simply, would mean fewer people dead, injured or permanently brain damaged. |
abf7ee52-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00008-000 | Boxers know the risks of their sport and choose freely to fight. They are also well-paid for the dangers of fighting. We have to allow people to make their own decisions in life. The government should not ban something adults choose to do unless it clearly affects other people. In boxing, it is the boxer who takes the risk and who will pay the price, no one else. Other sports are also dangerous, for example horse-riding, skiing or parachuting - should we ban those too? |
dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00025-000 | Despite the absurdly low amounts given by the proposition, it costs an enormously large amount to get a drug to market. Even skeptics admit that it costs $100-200 million[[The $800 Million Pill: The Truth behind the Cost of New Drugs, Merril Goozner ISBN 978-0-520-23945-6 Retrieved on 2009-07-15]] and it can go as high as $800 million per drug[[“The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development cost” (pdf) DiMasi J.A. et al.: , Journal of Health Economics 22(2003), 151-185. Retrieved on 2008-06-16]]. These costs include all the experimental drugs that don't work, getting through regulations to ensure the drugs are safe, and general high start-up costs to high-level scientific experimentation[[http://www.economist.com/node/2724420]]. Businesses therefore need to have a high return on every drug they produce. Moreover to this, they need the promise of large profits to encourage investment and creation in the drug in the first place. Creating a brand new drug requires enormous amounts of money and failed attempts, and therefore involves a large amount of risk. If a person can't be guaranteed some kind of control or return to that risk and expense, they are unlikely to want to invest in it. In particular, if a drug company can make more money by patenting drugs that cure hair loss, they will take that option. The affirmative has suggested a form of return, but they haven't show how they can guarantee a return to investment and a significant enough profit to give investors a reason to put their money towards drugs rather than something else, unless they allow a company to claim huge amounts of money in return. Even if they could make that guarantee, that would be for hundreds of millions of dollars for any drug that so much as reduces the effects of a life-threatening illness. Painkillers reduce the effects of life-threatening illness. Giving out large payouts to anyone that comes up with something that makes a small difference is definitely not viable. |
4cee76e5-2019-04-19T12:46:57Z-00000-000 | Teachers need to admit they are wrong |
4cee76e5-2019-04-19T12:46:57Z-00004-000 | When it comes to a student's word over a teacher's word, most times the teacher's word trumps that of the student, as there is no evidence to present nor witnesses to call upon. A lot of schools permit teachers to hit, yell at and defile their students, and many parents consider such behavior to be a necessary means to achieve discipline. Sometimes in certain schools, there is no authority to turn to and teachers are always right. |
2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00005-000 | Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work. |
2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00036-000 | If income tax is eliminated and a consumption tax is enacted, an immediate reduction in cost of goods is received. To put it simple, think of the amount of income tax taken out in corporate and personal tax to build let's say a car. Not only is the consumer paying income tax on his income, the persons and corporations up and down the assembly line do also. The engine maker, chassis, bumpers, tires, steel, wiring, etc... All of these income taxes will not be part of the cost. Therefore a vehicles cost would be reduced according, this would be the same rather it be a home, camera or a number 2 pencil. Most estimates have been around 25% to 32% overall. So a vehicle costing $20,000 to produce would now only cost $15000, now how much more competitive will American goods be, and the consumer would be getting a much better deal on goods and services when this is passed on. |
2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00010-000 | Abolishing Income Tax will grow the economy |
2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00014-000 | Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service |
2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00003-000 | Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society |
2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00041-000 | There are many things we consume but can’t be measured, healthcare, national defence and education, for example. How do we decide how much everyone should pay for them? To answer just one of the points raised, the childless should pay for other people's children to be educated because education does not just benefit the individual - the benefits a literate worker brings to the economy are such that everyone benefits. A direct tax is fair and progressive, because it demonstrates that we all have equal responsibility for the welfare of others. We live in a state where we believe in helping each other, rather than being selfish and helping only ourselves. That is why we have free public transport for the over-60s and the disabled, that's why we have state education, and why we formed the NHS sixty years ago. None of these would be possible without direct taxation. |
426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00010-000 | Shareholders’ interests are poorly protected if at all in Chapter 11-style bankruptcies. Usually, such a process will substantially reduce or even wipe out altogether the shareholders’ interest in the company (in which case they typically pass to the creditors). This is a court-backed removal of their property rights. It is not fair that the interests of the creditors or other parties should be put ahead of the interests of the shareholders in this way, especially because the shareholders like the creditors perform an important role in providing the risk capital which is necessary for businesses to function and grow. |
426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00001-000 | Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin... |
426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00005-000 | Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... |
217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00011-000 | Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes. |
217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00013-000 | For instance, if 50% of the median wage is €200, then choose the wage determination level of €100. Now, suppose that some person earns in a month €50; however he/she had no power to achieve a level of €100. We pay following Milton Friedamn'i NIT-negative income tax model, a half of €50, ie. € 25. Total personal payroll would be € 75. Milton Friedman do not obligate the payroll €75 for taxation. But, if we strip the exemption and do not make any changes in income tax rules at all¾we leave the rules old way, calculating all old subsidies into payroll¾then the solution is something else, look at http://www.datalaundering.com/download/txdesign.pdf |
217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00019-000 | Unless I have misunderstood, this means the state would top up incomes below certain amounts on a percentage basis. This would mean people with no income whatsoever would receive no money at all and would be left to fend for themselves. |
e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00001-000 | Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the sca... |
e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00004-000 | The reliance of America and its western allies on conventional fossil fuels, chiefly oil, is a major... |
e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00010-000 | Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel resources at an alarming rate, and often damaging the environment in order to extract them. If we go on relying on fossil fuels they will one day run out, and not only will our descendants no longer have viable energy reserves, but they will also have to cope with the ecological damage coal, oil and gas extraction have inflicted on the earth. Making fuel from crops provides a perfect, sustainable solution. |
5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00006-000 | It is important to note that in England a 16-year-old can only marry or leave home with their parents’ permission. A 16-year-old also cannot buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, or drive a car. You cannot argue on the grounds of ‘consistency’ without also arguing to lower the legal age for these activities as well. Furthermore how is it argued or by whom? by you? painstakingly not you create a logical fallacy by saying because 16 year olds do this they should be able to do that. My 12 year old nephew can run does that mean he should be able to participate in a marathon? obviously not because he lacks certain qualities that it takes to run a marathon just like 16 year olds lack certain qualities to vote at 16 |
5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00027-000 | Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections. |
5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00016-000 | It is a good argument. However, statistically, most 16 year olds are not in the army (as are most adults) and they are not married and/or raising a family. Most of them are also uninformed and generally ambivalent toward the politics, so would not vote anyway Yes, on the face of it, if 16 year olds can "die for their country" and "get married and pay tax", they should also be allowed to vote. Yet, how informed are their decisions in dying for their country? In getting married and raising a family? Not very. So it would be with the lowering of the voting age. So rather than informing people, we should oppress this group because we don't like them. |
5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00024-000 | The voting age in my country is 16 and I can tell you guys that it doesn't really change the political situation. Most of 16-year-old teenage electorate don't care about politics and don't actually vote. Besides, an immature 16-year-old may elect an unprepared candidate who gets the kid's vote with personal qualities and a manipulated and alienated speech |
d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00023-000 | Opp arguments aren't playing nice with one another. Rebutting Yes#4 they recognize the limitations of the current scope by saying that testing is “done randomly or in cases of suspicion”. AND in No#2 they admit there's impunity with “Even if the inaccuracy is relatively low, it means that those low percentages of athletes are getting away without their dope-cheating penalised”. Yet their evidence in the answer to Yes#2 says that these weak testing regimen took Summer Olympics positive results from 1.4% (1976), 0.8% (1984), to 0.42% (2008) and Winter Olympics from 5.1% (1976) to 0.08 (2006). This is highly incompatible with the assertion they made here “as seen in the past and in the present, cheating is inevitable”, since by their own admission, this measure, while limited and ineffective, helped reduce the percentage of athletes using PED since the 70's. Sadly it's still there (is not 0%), and stronger measures need to be taken. They also made a strong point out of incentives to cheat increasing due to the commercialization and popularity of the event. We contend that these increased temptations have to be matched with stronger disincentives than we have today so doping can be eradicated. Facing the ire of fans, colleagues and coaches is a strong blow for people wanting to be idols, and hurting the chances to win of their friends and teammates will give them emotional reasons to stay clean. They argue that it's unfair to strip people of "legally" acquired medals. First, in competitions like a relay race, if a member uses drugs, the entire team benefits from that performance so their medals are tainted. On the other hand, it is even less fair for a team with no cheaters to lose to a team of cheaters. It isn't like failing a whole class because someone cheated on their test, it's like failing a group essay if one of the members plagiarized part of the content, even if the other members weren't aware or chose to ignore it. |
d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00013-000 | An Athlete should not have to choose between his life and Olympic Glory. If doping is not harshly punished, it can come down to deciding between your life and health or beating the competition. Athletes should not be able to get an advantage out of something that will surely harm them. In Boxing, you can be banned for life for using plaster of paris bandages under your gloves. This is because it both harms both your opponent and your own hand. [[http://bit.ly/n17k59]] So you cannot enhance your performance by sacrificing your health. Suicide should not be permitted as a winning strategy. As we have said, sports should be about human beings achieving their potential of strength and speed while maintaining their health. It is a mandate for the Olympic Committee to minimize health risks. When Nodar Kumaritashvili, a luger competing for Georgia died in a Olympic training run, the Olympic Committee inmediately did the following Comittee Report 1. Increase the height of the outside wall (sliders left side) by 2.26 meters for a distance of 18 meters. 2. Addition of a 1 meter high wall on the outside wall (sliders left) for a distance of 10 meters from the end of the current wall. 3. Increasing the height of the inside wall (sliders right) by 40cm for a distance of 46 meters. 4. Squaring off the curve of the ice between the base of the track and the side walls of the outrun.. [[http://bit.ly/dnQ601]] This is why even in a sport where your opponent is supposed to hit you, there are regulations that punish certain punches, for example to your genitals. The idea is that you can both be a boxer and have kids. Hockey rules have changed to reflect the need to protect players by "now making any hit to the head — where the head is the principal point of contact — illegal" [[http://bit.ly/kThCOT]] We believe this is a good thing. Harshly punishing teams communicates doping is not condoned and that the rules of the game will be changed to make it a very risky vent |
d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00018-000 | The proposition stated that passing this resolution will improve the status quo by punishing the whole team then the athletes would be more careful and make the right choice. First of all, even if we pass this resolution, we’ll still be testing the athletes the same way; it’ll be done randomly or in cases of suspicion. Second of all, having harsher consequences doesn’t mean that doping will cease to exist in Olympic Games. All the proposition will achieve is actually encouraging this problem to get bigger and stronger. Although, in ancient Greece, Olympics used to be more for entertainment, nowadays, it’s not the Olympics without competition. Winning a medal is and has been their ultimate goal of the athletes’ lives. They’ve been training for years, practicing everyday and dreaming of the glorious moment when they feel the medals in their hands. They’ll do everything in their power to survive and make it to the top finalists. They won’t want to disappoint their families, their coaches and most of all, their country. What can stop them from trying even harder to win? Proposition world will create even more pressure for athletes to win and push their limits since the games will be up for “fair ground”. There’s countless number of athletes using the stimulants. New products are constantly coming on the market and new techs are being offered to them. The temptation to use the products will be significantly high. Since they would have access to new materials and not want to let down their people, they’ll be urged to be more careful and use improved methods not to get caught. The tests will catch only those who are careless. Therefore, like the proposition side has stated, this policy creates peer pressure. It’ll lead this problem into urging and forcing the athletes to try harder and do anything to win. That will definitely include being even more careful not to get caught. Passing this resolution will worsen the problem that we have today. |
d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00015-000 | Sports are one of the most universal cultural expressions, they have been so at least since the times of ancient Greece and they bring together people from all over the world to show off the results of their efforts in an environment of healthy competition. Like all other cultural expressions, mankind has steadily civilized sports: banning tactics that deliberately cause injury or harm to other athletes, using more referees so they can monitor competitions better, among many others. The institutions behind these measures are regulatory bodies, who must ensure that any given sport does not decrease its safety levels over time. The best way to do this is by setting minimum standards everybody must comply with, especially those athletes or teams willing to resort to tactics that sacrifice their own long-term health so they can have an edge over the rest of the competitors. If regulatory bodies did not do this, sports could degenerate as athletes engage in a "race to the bottom". Those who are desperate to win, would voluntarily start putting themselves in harms way by using performance-enhancing, yet health-endangering drugs in order to beat their competition. If they are allowed to succeed by choosing medals over health, then any competitor athlete wanting to win as well would be forced to choose between losing the competition or losing his own health. Thus, the consumption of these substances would go from voluntary to necessary. This would serve as a deterrent for healthy people to practice sports competitively so they can stay healthy, thus disenfranchising the people willing to keep sports clean and setting an horrible example for generations to follow. In the end everybody loses: all athletes would end up using drugs -and suffering the health drawbacks- without gaining any real edge over their competitors. |
b76ec089-2019-04-19T12:45:35Z-00014-000 | Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system. |
ed086351-2019-04-19T12:44:57Z-00006-000 | It is widely recognized by science and society that there are defined stages in the life of every individual, which overall, apply to the majority of the population. There may be some (rare) exceptions, such as the 13-year-old that is so brilliant they are enrolled in college, but even in such cases, certainly 13-year-olds are not fully mature in other ways. Sixteen-year-olds, lacking the experience and knowledge of fully mature adults, are susceptible to believing in ideas that they have not been able to test the validity of through experience, or by gaining enough neccessary knowledge about the ideas presented that they lack the ability to be able to apply any real sense of discernment about those ideas. It takes time and maturity to become a fully-informed adult capable of weighing the pros and cons of ideas to come to reasonable and responsible decisions. Sixteen-year-olds, at their stage in life, are dealing with issues that adults, for the most part, have already had experience with - growing bodies, peer acceptance/rejection, relationships with the opposite sex, getting a basic education, thinking about what they are going to do for a future career , etc.. Their time is occupied with these new (to them) and neccessary things - there is time enough for them to worry about voting. They should be interested in things such as politics and issues our country faces, but they are still in a learning stage. To allow them to vote before they are fully developed adults is folly. Politicians that are behind the idea of allowing 16-year-olds to vote are simply hoping to take advantage of their lack of knowledge and experience. To more fully drive home my point that sixteen-year-olds are not mature enough to vote, I offer the following article from the website "Live Science" concerning the development of the human brain: At an age when Americans are first considered adults, their brains are still maturing, a new study suggests. Researchers at Dartmouth College scanned the brains of nineteen 18-year-old students who had moved more than 100 miles to attend school. "During the first year of college, students have many new experiences," said psychologist Abigail Baird, the study's principal investigator. "They are faced with new cognitive, social, and emotional challenges." A group of 17 older students, ranging in age from 25 to 35, served as a control group for comparison. The results showed that the freshmen students' brains underwent significant changes and were very different from that of the older adults. The researchers believe the changes represent an increased awareness of the students' inner feelings and an improved ability to organize and integrate incoming sensory information; this synthesis helps shape the kinds of emotional and behavioral responses they have to new experiences. The results are consistent with other research suggesting that the human brain continues to grow and mature right up to the point when we become adults and even beyond. In another study, researchers found that humans don't really develop the ability to handle multiple pieces of information at once until about the ages of 16 or 17. "The brain of an 18-year-old college freshman is still far from resembling the brain of someone in their mid-twenties," said Craig Bennett, a graduate student who was involved in the new research. "When do we reach adulthood? It might be much later than we traditionally think." |
ed086351-2019-04-19T12:44:57Z-00002-000 | It is a stereotype to suggest that anybody under a certain age is incapable of making decisions- as a sixteen year old myself I feel perfectly happy to make a vote, as I'm sure many others would too. |
3a4e4366-2019-04-19T12:44:06Z-00006-000 | It is fair that people who earn more income should pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. The tax supports the administration of their country which provides the sort of operating environment in which they are able to earn their wages in the first place. Even when paying a higher marginal rate on the top end of their earnings, they will still take home more than people who are paid less with a tax rate anything up to 100%. |
2cc38a7d-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00013-000 | Extra-judicial killing is illegal, immoral, contributes in no way to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and can only serve to further delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the world. There will be no shortage of volunteers to replace any that they kill - the longer the conflict continues the more Palestinians will see no way out but to attack Israel. The only solution is to negotiate and compromise - as the UK appears to have managed with Northern Ireland. The alternative is to repeat the Nazi 'final solution' which would be an horrendous irony. Unfortunately blood tends to lead to more blood as it is vengence people want when someone is killed. |
595d0d04-2019-04-19T12:44:24Z-00007-000 | Being a top sportsman or woman means hours of training every day in order to become the very best. It is not possible to train in this way while working in a normal job. Athletes can only train full time if they are paid to do so, and given the best equipment and coaching. If we want to see top athletes competing at the highest level, we must be prepared for our governments to pay for it out of our taxes. |
dde1a370-2019-04-19T12:46:18Z-00003-000 | The other options to discipline pupils are not helpful. |
f2c6760a-2019-04-19T12:44:58Z-00047-000 | The Proposition was quick and honest to acknowledge that their "proposal would restrict the freedom of newly-graduated medical personnel to cut and run without compensating the home nation for the costs of their training", and then they "If the employee changes their mind and wants to change careers they simply buy themselves out of the contract by reimbursing their employer. If they do so after a year or two, they repay a proportion pro rata. Once they have 'worked off' the cost of the investment they become free agents". It is in their second turn or speech that the troubling view of the Proposition on how to enforce their scheme came to light and so its tragic implications. What they are basically advocating is that medical education should not be provided for free anymore -and instead generate some sort of debt or obligation- in developing and even in developed nations (from the Philippines to England). It would no longer be free if it comes with strings attached, medical staff are supposed to pay for their education by working their debt off or else pay for the remaining of their contract. Their system is an perverse and degenerate implementation of only allowing student loans for students of medical professions, since at least under a student loan scheme students know how much debt they are acquiring, and interest rates are regulated, these debts are even subject to bankruptcy law in some jurisdictions, the state acts as a guarantor of citizens rights against banks, but the efficiency of government funding is lost due to the cut the banks take for themselves, students however are free to emigrate or switch professions and jobs, provided they pay their loans with their new job or from their new location. There is a reason states choose to provide free education and it's that charging tuition fees, as a Scottish Education Minister once said, "[prevents] young people from poor backgrounds going on to university for fear of getting into debt"[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554455/Scotland-to-abolish-student-fees-despite-debts.html]]. On the other hand under the Prop. scheme the burden of the contract would be placed upon the students, who are much more vulnerable than the state, the universities and the employers, since they have fewer monetary resources and thus access to legal counsel. The medical professionals will be "[subjugated] to a controlling person or force"[[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bondage]] in this case their government, so that they are "obliged by contract to work for a stated number of years"[[http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/refserv/html/servant.html]], and are somewhat "bound to the land" as if they were owned by the state (not too many feudal lords left)[[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=serf]]. In colonial times people became indentured servants in exchange for a trade and a passage to the Americas or other colonies, and nowadays they propose to rescue this unfree labor practice, adapting it so people would be doing it for a career in medicine and an air ticket to the West instead. Just as people in debt bondage, indentured servants and slaves, they could be sold to new masters (in this case either countries or employers). The only way out of this brutal oppression is for the medical personnel to buy themselves out of the contract, a right they could hardly have been denied since even slaves were allowed to buy their own freedom. They finally deigned to clarify whether the compensation was paid to the home country before or after the personnel left the country by saying "his new employers must reimburse the cost of this training in advance". The thing is, enforcing these contracts means that the home and host countries have to be able to restrict the medical staff from leaving. Else they have no guarantee of compensation once they leave since sanctioning, embargoing or invading a richer nation seldom makes sense, and a medicine professional running off to a poorer country would be free -as a slave who escaped from the US South to a Northern state- because there would be no compensation to work off any more (since the Prop. plan is not a general migration compensation scheme, but rather a richer country compensates poorer country scheme). If no such measures are implemented then workers would just migrate as they do in the SQ and the plan would not make any significant difference whatsoever, except for driving immigration to a black market where the rule of law would be non-existent and migrants would be have to turn to smugglers and human traffickers to reach their dreamed destinations, and then suffer the hardships of being illegal aliens, and they would also be able to send less money back home, because of their immigration status. No root causes of Brain Drain solved, worst conditions for migrants, less remittance money (that does reach the population, unlike the corruption-vulnerable compensation): All pain and no gain without ensuring enforcement. However, these draconian measures go against the Declaration of Human Rights[[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml]], Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 13.2 "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country", Article 23.1 "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment". The Proposition scheme amounts to servitude, and so it is a violation of human rights no matter if the contracts are enforced or not. Putting a price tag on the right to leave the country that currently holds the contract, switching jobs, careers or just quitting equals the suspension of these human rights, and thus of human dignity. Ensuring enforcement of this plan is a way to try to solve "unfairness" by suspending human rights, an oxymoron and harm like no other. |
7df86911-2019-04-19T12:44:10Z-00007-000 | It has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoking is bad for the development of children. Young children and toddlers are more sensitive than grownups because their bodies are still growing. They also breathe faster than adults and so may take more smoke into their lungs. Second-hand smoking puts children at risk of respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma. They are more likely to get sick, to be sick for longer and to have more serious illnesses than other children. When they get sick they often need to be taken to a hospital and miss school because of it. So second-hand smoking harms both their physical and psychological (mental) development. |
ea60501e-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00016-000 | Improves Education |
efd066b3-2019-04-17T11:47:46Z-00058-000 | While a right to self defense exists, it is important to note that more people are accidentally killed by their own guns than are saved by them. On this account, is the possession of guns, assault weapon or other, really "self-defense"? Furthermore, assuming that gun ownership involves risks, the ownership of more deadly assault weapons may increase the risk of accidental death or mutilation. |
efd066b3-2019-04-17T11:47:46Z-00024-000 | Police support a ban on assault weapons |
98ed94cf-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00039-000 | There is a good chance that global warming is irreversible. Global warming is already occurring and there are no plans to reduce greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise, despite reductions in new emissions. Geoengineering, therefore, is the likely last resort. |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00034-000 | A two-state solution is the least bad option |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00027-000 | One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000 | For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism. |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000 | "Is the two-state solution in danger?". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: "The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state." |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00067-000 | "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: "King Abdullah II is not being straight on this issue either. He doesn't want a Palestinian state between Jordan and Israel because of the threat to Jordan that a Palestinian state would pose to him." |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00045-000 | Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself." |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00053-000 | Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow." |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00016-000 | A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable. |
402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00069-000 | Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land." [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. |