Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 12

ac53643e-2019-04-18T15:28:13Z-00001-000

Amina Amjed The case of Animal Rights Round 4 1.The use of animals for science, for commercial purposes, for agriculture purposes and for the purposes of sport hunting and trapping should be abolished. 2.It is our duty to consider animals just as we consider those who are unable to protect and defend themselves such as the elderly, the disabled and children. 3.The unjust and immoral abuse of animals for science, sports, agriculture and for any other human entertainment or attainment of needs for said humans is fundamentally wrong. 4.We should not regard animals as resources. 5.Once we start viewing them as only sources, which is where we commit the fundamental wrong. 6.It is our 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. 7.It is without a doubt that the process of change regarding animals and the rights of animals is complicated and required extensive amount of time and finance to bring about this change but even so it is much needed. 8.Using/abusing animals for scientific experiments and/or for sports" such as seal clubbing is brutal and against morality. 9.We should not overlook animal rights because they do not have the characteristics and inherent components of a human being. 10.Some would justify the use of animals by applying the theory of contractarianism. 11.Contractarianism is the belief, by some, that morality consists of a set a set of rules that individuals abide to voluntarily just as we do when we agree to a contract. 12.In this case, animals cannot volunteer or provide consent to be or not be part of a contract therefore they cannot be moral and not considered persons. 13.The same is true for children. Children are unable to consent to a contract without the proper consent and supervision of their parent(s) and/or guardian. Similarly, animals should be protected by their guardian(s), if one is present, with the same moral perspective as another human. 14. By applying inherent value, it is evident that each individual is as valuable as the next and not just what that individual can do for another but the value of the individual on its own; animal or human. 15.We should not use/abuse animals just because by doing so it provides for the good of others. By hurting or undermining one individual, human or animal, we condone acts of cruelty which are not morally justified acts. 16.The rights view of moral theory rationally explains the domain of human morality. 17.Furthermore, it is undisputable that animals lack many attributes as a human such as reading, writing, building book cases or baking a cake. 18.The fight for animal rights is analogous to that of equality for women and other minorities, 19.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. This view is a utilitarian view but not a morally just view pertaining to inherent values. 20.The aforementioned animals are treated without any respect and by doing so the rights of these animals are violated. 21.Killing a human being does not justify our moral values then why should that be true of killing or torturing animals. 22.A right, properly understood, is claim that one party may exercise against another. 23.But rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. 24.If that were true then we would have to assent that humans who are mentally impaired or comatose lack the ability to respond to or exercise moral claims therefore they have no rights. 25.Rights can simply pertain to those that have a subject of life, like normal mammals and non-human mammals because they have inherent value. 26.We have to end the systematic oppression on these animals as our moral duty. 27.Non- human mammals have the same fundamental rights to not be harmed or killed as we do. 28.As you mentioned, that one always weighs the pros and cons of whatever decision they make in order to determine the morality of said decision, is not always accurate. 29.Some human individuals lack the ability to determine what is right and wrong which further enforces the point that they are not moral beings. 30.If it was necessary to only have morality as a component of being a person than some humans would cease to one. 31. The abusive act of a mother, towards their child then are not immoral, as far as the individual committing the act but is considered immoral to those who are in fact able to make moral and immoral distinctions. 32.Because we cannot properly infer and communicate with animals, as humans we cannot assume as you said that they lack the ability to actually communicate. 33.It is almost like one individual who speaks only one language, going to a different country with a completely different language. At this point this individual has to acquire the ability to learn or either try and find someone to be able to communicate with the people of this country. 34.I do not believe that by giving rights to animals we would inherently be degrading the meaning of "rights". 35.If anything we would be expanding upon those rights to make them more just towards every member of our community and the world which includes animals as well humans. 36.It is true that by regarding a domestic animal as part of the family we do not stop considering them as an animal and I do not argue that point. 37.If to a thief the act of robbery is moral than how can we not say the same in regards to animals? 38.If a thief can commit a crime and believe that he is doing so with moral justification than we cannot think that an animal does what it does without moral causation. 39.Once again, I state that rights cannot simply depend on the presence of moral capacity. 40.The abuse of animals, in any arena of life if wrong and should be abolished. 41.Monkeys, therefore, should be considered persons in the eyes of the law.

baa775df-2019-04-18T19:01:18Z-00000-000

Tags get progressively more crazy with each Pro response... I'll do my best ===Con Counter=== A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement 1) Con presents a ridiculous straw man here. He thinks Blackwater and the corporate shills working for the government are examples of "private security". But they are clearly working for the government, under its intimate protection, and being paid with tax dollars. That's not private. Regardless, this is not explicitly a debate about private vs public security. As I said before, I'll be fine with minarchy. The point is that police in the status quo have a superior alternative to kidnapping druggies. 2) Pro concedes that if you spent money on something, you should use it. Presumably this means that every bullet should be fired, grenade detonated, and waterboard used to its fullest extent. This is totally morally bankrupt. Our actions should be guided by concern for our fellow man, not trying to recover sunk costs at the expense of every social value. 3) Pro says I drop this. Well, if you look back, I don't. And this isn't a "topic", its just a couple of ad hoc definitions from Pro. 4) For all of Pro's case, he's been under the assumption that police are automatically always the good guys. Even if police were good in practice, it would not mean they are imbued with magical rights that elevate them above the rest of society. 5) So Pro and I will have to agree to disagree. I think that if a police officer attacks an innocent person, the person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force (if necessary), and the police officer has forfeited all rights BECAUSE he is initiating violence. More clearly, if I rape you, and you try to kill me, I DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF. Pro disagrees, presumably because police have superhuman rights. He has no theory of justice, only an incoherent pseudo-pragmatic idea that people get rights no matter what they're doing. B) 1) Pro thinks that drug use is a victimless crime. Well, its not a victimless crime when police officers kidnap drug users. Rape is perfectly analogous to kidnapping in that it is a violation of rights, and we can ALL agree that rape victims have a right to defend themselves, while their assailants do not> Pro goes on to say that police have special rights because we allow them to. This is ridiculous. First, you can't confer rights onto someone that you yourself do not possess. For example, I don't have the right to murder, so I can't give government the right to murder. Second, pro thinks that we "allow" police to have special rights, which is nonsense. People do not allow themselves to be imprisoned or shot at. From hypothesis, we are fighting the abuse of power. Pro even concedes that people have a right to fight government and police if it will prevent tyranny. That's as clear a concession as you're going to get... 2) Pro thinks private security can't enforce laws for some reason. If that's the case, I'm not sure what they're doing or why anyone would pay for their services. A) He also thinks that only the very rich can afford private security guards. Anyone who's ever gone to a liquor store at night, or lives in an apartment complex will know that security guards are regularly hired in poor areas. Pro doesn't even know the difference between public security (being forced to pay police officers that the state chooses) and private security (choosing among competing firms with your own money). Its not relevant to this debate, but its still disheartening. 3) Actually a minarchist state would have to control police a lot more than the status quo. For one, there is no drug war in minarchy. Police are restricted to defending individual rights. 4) So this is not even relevant to the debate, skip on if you're uninterested. A) Pro's position is that government isn't stealing from you because they provide services with what they take. But the definition of stealing has nothing to do with how the loot is used. If I stole your wallet and bought you a mcdonalds, it would still be theft, even if you liked mcdonalds. 5) Pro thinks I am taking that quote out of context... that's kind of hard to believe because wikipedia had chosen to quote an author, and I took the whole quote. But yes, if this is a voting issue, read or skim the links. Pro is simply getting cognitive dissonance when he reads them. A) Pro never proved the US has done good in the world. Its irrelevant anyway. A mass murderer is still a murderer even if he's kind to kittens and birds. 6) Pro says he knows what a minarchist state is. If that is the case, he shouldn't be questioning whether there will be police around to protect basic rights. D) Police are directed by the same laws as us 1) So he thinks LEOs are allowed to use deadly force if I defend myself with deadly force. He proves this by assuming that LEOs are just kind of shoving the victim. But at SOME POINT, you have to defend yourself with with deadly force to get someone to back off. Defense is always about upping the ante. The long and short is that Pro doesn't have a theory of self defense or justice. Presumably, if someone was being raped and pulled a gun on their assailant, the rapist would be like "whoah whoah, no need to use deadly force. I could die! Pro says that is a misuse of force. I'm going to pull out my knife and kill you now". Obviously what rights people have depend entirely on context and justice. A badge or funny hat does not elevate you above other men. ===Con Case=== A) Police attack innocent people 1) Pro drops this point. So he concedes that police are acting way beyond any theory of justice, that they are capable of gross criminal acts, etc. 2) Pro agrees that the right to self defense transcends government law, which means he agrees that police forfeit their rights when committing crimes against justice. B) Pro's only response to the horrible mass genocide and economic armageddon of the USA is that maybe we do some good too. Fine. Where's the source? Nowhere. Okay. C) Police shouldn't be invincible Pro concedes that rogue officers do need to go to jail, which means that they don't have a right to defend themselves. Again, an awkward concession of the resolution. === ProClusion === (this is a pun) Pro tries to weasel out of government crime by reneging on his previous concession that we have a right to fight back against government when it is tyrannical. He says every state has done horrible things in its existence, but doesn't say what we should do about it. Apparently, police have a right to shoot us no matter how immoral laws are. ===ConClusion=== (also a pun) The three most powerful reasons to vote con: 1) PRO INCOHERENCE – Pro concedes that people have a right to defend themselves against cops. He also holds the contradictory view that cops have a right to attack people who are defending themselves. So he's supporting two contradictory rights. He never provides a resolution to the contradiction. In the pro world, there can be no justice or law because right-violaters get rights if innocent people defend themselves. There are a lot of theories of justice and law, but I've never heard that one before. Probably because it's just pro's ad hoc attempt to synthesize his morally bankrupt case with a couple slivers of common sense. 2) JUSTICE - Police do not have special rights. Justice transcends occupation. Self defense is justified entirely on individual merits, not a badge or funny hat. Police don't have a right to defend themselves if they are attacking innocent people. 3) UTILITY – Police shouldn't be invincible. Citizens should be able to overthrow tyrannical governments. Even the most conservative viewer must admit that bad police need to be reigned in by good police.

baa775df-2019-04-18T19:01:18Z-00004-000

Pro opens by observing that police officers are just "public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled". First, I'm claiming that police officers should quit and work for the private sector. There are already about 50% more private security guards than public police [1] [2]. Second, pro talks about wasted training (as if this were really on everybody's mind when they're getting shot at), and again, this can be permutated into my "join the private security industry or play nice" counterplan. =========== Con Case =========== A) Police Attack Innocent People 1) Arresting someone means you physically subdue and restrain them. That's "attacking". Police attack and arrest anyone who violate government laws, which may or may not be just. My position is that the majority of these laws are unjust, such as drug laws. My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad. Its probably the major reason why police get shot at in the first place, so it is highly topical. It also accounts for a large majority of the people in prison. So you have police trying to kidnap people who aren't hurting anyone. They have the right to self defense against the police officer, so they can kill him. The police officer has no right to be messing with them in the first place, so he has no right to self defense. Resolution negated. 2) Pro says this argument doesn't matter because hippies and teenagers aren't armed. They could be... but the point is that they have a RIGHT to shoot the police officer. Pro goes on to say that police officers have a right to apprehend drug users because "possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US". This is called an "Appeal to Authority". If the US government says that redheads are allowed to be raped, they STILL have the right to self defense that transcends whatever the f*cks in Washington decide. So non-violent drug users, like redheads, have a right to self defense no matter what US "law" says. Police officers upholding unjust laws have forfeited their rights. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 3) Pro doesn't rebut that police protect the country's largest and most violent criminal organization. In addition to the massive amount of taxes they take and give to large corporations, they've killed literally millions of people for no given reason... including the aftermath of the first Iraq War, deadly injections of "foreign aid"[3] and many terrorist campaigns in South America and Africa [4]. Pro's only defense of the police who protect these genocidal maniacs is that they protect US citizens as well. This is incredibly shortsighted, and even if police were giving me foot rubs every day, it would not be enough to make up for their support of government thugs. Furthermore, if police really WERE protecting my rights, there would be almost no private security industry. Except there is... and its much larger than the public security industry. See above citations. I guess public police just chase down druggies and really aren't all that essential to preventing muggings and home burglaries. Pro then goes on to say he doesn't want to debate anarchy vs statism. That's fine. I'll just assume the "minarchist" or minimal, nightwatchman state. In either case, the just role of police officers is restricted to protecting people's libertarian rights, not hunting down peaceful drug users. He claims that my "argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government", but I'd be really happy with a minarchist state. Pro then brings up the "if you don't like it, leave" argument... which is totally peripheral, especially since I just conceded minarchy. Regardless, Pro seems to think that the US government can do literally anything to me, and as long as I stay put, that means I "consent". Does this mean I can break into his house, start stealing his stuff, and he "consents" as long as I give him the option to move? I think not. C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible 4) Pro's rebuttal of this sub point is particularly weak. If you don't buy all the ra-ra anti government stuff, please just vote off this. Pro says that "Just Apprehenders do not have the right to make legal arrests in this country. If a LEO is to be arrested, for whatever reason, then the victim should call the proper authorities." He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes. They don't have to be... but even if you buy that "the proper authorities" are the only people who can arrest police officers, they STILL have to threaten the rogue police officer with deadly force. He doesn't have a right to shoot back if, from hypothesis, he ought to go to jail. ================ Concluding Argument ================ Pro concludes that people who draw weapons on police officers are stupid and deserve to die. This G.I. Joe theory of public enforcement is completely devoid of substance or context. In reality, Police are out there to kidnap innocent drug users and protect the pigs in office. Even if you don't buy the drug war angle, you still have to believe that it CAN BE JUST for people to rise up against their governments... That there are contexts where shooting a police officer is the morally just and correct thing to do. Pro's blind third grade "police are the good guys" chant paints over a much more sinister and complicated reality. The long and short is that being a police officer doesn't give you extra moral rights over other human beings. The absolutism of the resolution is easily negated. [1]http://www.bls.gov... [2]http://www.bls.gov... [3]http://www.cato.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...

3b40d84a-2019-04-18T13:09:58Z-00004-000

This round was written by Tejretics, approved/advised by Solon and Uniferous; delegations for future rounds will differ. Burdens:The topic is normative, so the burdens are equal. Pro's burden is to show that abortion should be illegal, while ours is to show that abortion should be legal. The word "should" implies net benefits, so we will be discussing the net benefits and harms of our cases. Framework:We agree on a framework of utilitarianism - the role of the state is to maximize benefit and minimize harm to the people. The power of a government to exercise control over an individual can only be applied in order to prevent harm or maximize benefit to society, or to acknowledge a value of society - without such reason the government lacks legitimacy itself, since the state of nature is one where people are free to do whatever they want. Infringing on this state of nature serves a purpose: to prevent harm to non-consensual others. Pro might talk about how harm can be done to an individual by the same individual, but individual choices ought not be restricted because measures of utility when it comes to choices that an individual makes that doesn't harm anyone else are inherently subjective, so the individual themselves are the best ones to perform cost-benefit analysis. Thus, we offer the following criterion: the only purpose for which power can be exercised over an unwilling person is to maximize benefit or minimize/prevent harm to non-consensual others.Abortion doesn't harm anyone significantly, so, per the framework given above, women should have the liberty of abortions. 1. Harm to the fetus The fetus cannot feel/perceive subjectively. A "harm" is defined as "physical or mental damage or injury." (Merriam-Webster) Under utilitarianism, pleasure and/or pain are requirements for moral consideration. Lacking perception, they can't feel such injury/damage. Pro says fetuses have neurological development at week 5, so can feel pleasure/pain then. First, in that case, abortion can be legal for the first four weeks - that itself negates Pro's case to this extent. Second, fetuses don't feel pleasure/pain just because of initial neurological development. There's more than basic nervous systems to experiencing pain. Pro's source #2 doesn't talk about pain/pleasure, only on neurological development. The vast majority of research agrees that fetuses begin to experience such basic emotions only sometime between 24 and 37 weeks. [1] The lowest estimate of all is 20 weeks, which itself has been refuted. [2]2. Psychological damagePro's argument that abortions cause psychological damage fails for two reasons. One, from the harm principle, we can see that even the psychological damage caused is to the individual that chooses to have an abortion, so it remains a self-regarding act. The government shouldn't legislate to prevent purely self-regarding acts. Two, this claim is nonsense anyway. If a woman is denied a safe abortion, research suggests that she might face psychological harms (e.g. anxiety or depression). Rocca and Kimport, et al. explain that "[c]ompared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger . . . and less relief and happiness." [3] 3. Hippocratic OathPro doesn't prove that the Hippocratic Oath ought to be followed as it is, and that it shouldn't be modified at all. 4. Back-alley abortionsPro's arguments assume that banning abortion will reduce the amount of abortions - because otherwise two of the key arguments fail. This assumption is wrong. Dr. Paul Van Look of the World Health Organization led a study that suggested that "abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it." [4] Women are going to have abortions anyway. So whatever right to life the fetus has isn't going to be respected at all. But there's a problem as to *why* that is the case: back-alley abortions. Back-alley abortions are abortions taken place in unsafe, illegal and non-medical conditions. When abortion is illegal, it's very tough to afford appropriate medical conditions and regulations expected in hospitals. So women go to places with poor medical facilities to get abortions, or attempt to self-abort. Such unsafe abortions lead to around 68,000 deaths annually (mostly in countries where abortion is illegal), along with *millions* of painful injuries. [5] The harm is huge. Banning abortion would have a significant impact on deaths.5. RapeThe resolution requires Pro to defend an abortion ban in cases of rape- since when a person is raped being denied an abortion doesn't cause death or serious physical harm. In cases of rape, the mother is deprived of the choice to possess a fetus - which means they are forced to experience pain for nine months and then intense pain during delivery under Pro's case. Apply Thompson's violinist analogy. The analogy is as follows: you wake up one morning and find yourself back in bed with an unconscious violinist who has been found to have a usually-fatal kidney ailment- a certain society the violinist is part of has forcibly strapped you to the violinist for nine months, which causes you frequent intense pain. You remove the strap, the violinist dies. [6] The purpose of this analogy is to elicit the intuition that it's morally permissible to remove the strap in this scenario - because of the suffering you're going through without consent, and have already undergone suffering through the rape.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...

9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00003-000

College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or "career". In order to get a "career" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .

b66b8c44-2019-04-18T16:48:56Z-00001-000

In this argument I will argue that gay marriage should remain illegal, and my opponent will argue the oppposite.

7fa91ebc-2019-04-18T19:55:53Z-00005-000

The death penalty is currently offered as a form of punishment in 38 states. There are many reasons why it should not be, however. First, twelve people should not be allowed to judge whether or not someone has the right to live. We cannot place value on one person's life over another's. Someone who has been convicted of murder is still a human being. They still have a mother and a father and they still have the right to live. Killing the person convicted of a murder is not going to offer closure to the families of the victims. It is not going to bring back those who have been killed. Then there is always the chance that the convicted person is innocent. Especially with recent developments in DNA testing, many previously convicted criminals are being exonerated. Since 1973, over 125 people have been released from death row because of evidence of their innocence. Why take the risk of executing an innocent person when life in prison without parole is just as effective in stopping innocents from being hurt by the criminal. A decision to imprison someone for life can be reversed. Death is a tad bit more final. Yet another reason is the plain and simple cost. At the trial level, a death penalty case costs, on average, $470,000. The same case, when triad without the death penalty being offered costs around $47,000. This is a huge difference! Also, consider that this is just ONE CASE. In an appeal, cases involving the death penalty generate over $100,000 in additional costs than those which do not involve the death penalty. I think that will do for my opening argument. Good luck to my opponent! (Facts from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org)

2709758f-2019-04-18T19:49:44Z-00000-000

In 1986 Victoria Australia legalized prostitution and brothels and installed a plan to have the prostitutes registered and check by medical professionals. Shortly after starting this program the STD rates increased. Not to mention legalizing prostitution encourages women to enter a career where they cannot make a living. In Australia the average prostitute made less than 500 Australian dollars a week. Legalizing prostitution does not mean an end to illegal prostitution or street prostitution. 80% of the average street prostitutes are heavy drug users. 46% have children in protective. 80% of prostitutes where assaulted by either pimps or buyers. Even with it legal it still led to crime in Victoria on average 2 rapes and one assault where reported by prostitutes per night. There where also a few prostitutes murder each year. Also it does not put an end to the illegal sex trade. Australia has an estimated $30 million sex trade industry. Oh and of all the states in Australia Victoria the had the highest number of reported child prostitution. And legalizing prostitution but with a required condom policy does not work either. In the US 73% of prostitutes said men are willing to pay more for sex without a condom. 45% said they where abused and assaulted if they insisted men wear condoms. And in response to the comment yes people are arrested for prostitution according to the FBI roughly 60,000 in 2002 where arrested for prostitution. That's more than rape, murder, gambling, and arson. In conclusion prostitution should remain illegal. It should remain this way because it does nothing good for a society. It increases STD's and does nothing to reduce illegal prostitution. It leads to an increase in sex trafficking and child molestation. Drug use and violence both increase. http://www.fbi.gov... http://action.web.ca... http://www.prostitutionprocon.org... http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca... http://books.google.com... http://books.google.com...

e3bc73ed-2019-04-18T12:37:39Z-00003-000

Yes, the death penalty is a punishment for a crime. I must argue however, that the majority of the people receiving the death penalty, are psychopaths and sociopaths who were most likely abused during their childhood. They didn't know any better. They were sick. And they needed help. And judging by the amount of executions that have been carried out in the U.S, the death penalty does not scare these people. If they really want to, they will kill anyways. Psychopaths and sociopaths do not feel fear the way people without these mental disorders do. It is also possible for a murderer to frame someone else, if they are crafty enough. Just think about that. It is possible for a person to kill someone, and blame you. If you were found guilty and got the death penalty, the government would be putting you, an innocent man to death. Doesn't that scare you? There have been many cases where an innocent man was executed. I got this story from the death penalty information center. "Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993 A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle cast serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man. Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle. In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person." Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times. Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that." (Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005)." There were about 12 other cases on this website with extremely sad stories. These people were put to death, and afterwards police were either suspicious or they realized that they killed the wrong guy. Here are the names of all the other innocent people listed on this website. Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989 Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995 Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997 David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997 Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998 Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000 Claude Jones Texas Convicted 1989 Executed 2000 Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004 Troy Davis Georgia Convicted 1991 Executed 2011 Lester Bower Texas Convicted 1984 Executed 2015 Brian Terrell Georgia Convicted 1995 Executed 2015 Richard Masterson Texas Convicted 2002 Executed 2016 I must also point out that life imprisonment is absolutely not giving people convicted of murder kudos for killing 10 innocent people. It is keeping a potentially innocent but most likely guilty person off the streets, so that they are unable to kill again.

8cce991f-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00004-000

While it is true that animals are under the dominion of man, animal testing is done half the time because of curiosity and for no reason. Also, no matter how many animal tests are done there is always going to be the first person that has to take this test. Animals are in no way shape for form similar to a person so you cannot compare which will happen to one or the other. Take the chemical "Penicillin" for an example, is fine for rabbits but kills guinea pigs. Also, "Morphine" which is a depressant for humans stimulates goats, cats and horses. The FDA did a research that 92% of the chemicals done through animal testing failed in human testing. The point is, animal testing is useless as a human still has to be the first one to try it and we are just wasting millions of dollars on this.

840e743e-2019-04-18T16:15:24Z-00005-000

P1: Since 2008, the number of people living in or near the poverty line has been staggering, which leaves millions of people vulnerable to many diseases. (www.nfhs.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2906) P2: The programs that are out now (TANF, CRS, SCHIP) have provided assistance for families and continue to do so, but it seems it has done little affect to provide assistance for families and other individuals in need. The programs have helped but raising minimum wage, expanding earned income tax credit and child tax credit would help significantly. Conclusion: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

c0de90c8-2019-04-18T16:31:41Z-00005-000

http://kidshealth.org... http://drugfacts4youngpeople.com... http://drugfactsweek.drugabuse.gov... Those links that I have posted will back up my statement that I have made.

1814741f-2019-04-18T16:01:29Z-00004-000

A true gentlemen's move! And just to clarify, I am generally against fracking, just thought it’d be fun to try the other side. My case won’t necessarily be that fracking is great, but that it isn’t bad enough to warrant a ban, and that we don’t have enough information to do so presently. A ban would hurt the US economically in a couple of ways and environmentally in a couple of ways, and I will make the case that there is no consensus about whether fracking is really good or bad. And I would say really quick that I hope the voters can do their best to put aside any preconceptions about fracking when reading this debate over, I know I sure had to so I hope you will too! The first part of my case will be going through the environmental issues surrounding fracking. P1- Environmental issuesCarbonI guess I’ll start with carbon emissions. Currently, the US has lower carbon emissions than any time in the last 20 years. (3) This is largely a result of an increase in shale gas useage and a decrease in coal. Shale is cleaner than coal, so it is better for the environment. Banning shale when there are no cleaner alternatives available to be implemented on a national scale yet would do more harm than good. The reduction in US carbon emissions is a great reason not to ban fracking. According to the British government, shale produced 46% less carbon for the same amount of heat (19). WastewaterAnother concern with fracking is the enormous amounts of water it takes. Estimates vary on how much water goes into 1 well, but it is somewhere between (according to Gasland) 2-8 million gallons of water. That is a lot of water, however most of that water gets recycled. In Pennsylvania, for example, 97% of water used in fracking was reused again. So although it takes a lot of water initially, lots of that water gets reused. Also, overall the water useage from fracking isn’t that large. About .3% of water useage in 2010 was for fracking, and considering large amounts of that get recycled it isn’t that much, certainly not enough to warrant a ban. Dangers from fracking can really be seperated into two categories, above and below ground. AbovegroundThe aboveground concerns are mainly methane leakage and chemical contamination of water and air from spills and accidents. Methane leakage is actually relatively low, in a recent study by University of Texas methane leakage levels from 190 areas wells were found to be about 1.5% (8), which was much lower than the EPA estimated percentage in the ballpark of 3. Opposition activists and scientists stated in 2010 that fracking would have no benefit if leakage levels were over 2%, so even by their standards fracking is beneficial. Of course any leakage is bad, but the leakage is low enough that fracking is beneficial. Another concern of environmentally is that chemicals used in the process can poison nearby areas. Basically this can happen if there are accidents at the well site, and these accidents are due to poor well construction (having uncemented well sites for example). It’s similar to an oil spill; it’s bad but it can be avoided. Energy companies estimate that regulations would likely increase shale energy costs by 25-35 cents mcf (1000 cubic feet of gas) which is hardly an increase in price at all. (13) The point is, risks of accident aren’t directly related to fracking so they shouldn’t affect a decision to ban, but these risks can be mitigated with practically no cost to companies with regulations. BelowgroundBelowground concerns deal mainly with methane and chemicals contaminating water, but there is no consensus on this issue either. Anti-frackers claim that it sets your water on fire from your faucet (see my opponents link) and that fracking contaminates nearby wells. However, there is no hard evidence. The EPA found in the past that fracking does not contaminate freshwater wells (15) Other instances where there were concerns about fracking contaminating have been dismissed after further research as well, such as a case in Colorado involving sink water catching fire (12). There is a large concern about the dangers of contamination from fracking chemicals and methane leaking, and obviously this is an area that should be further researched. But based on the current research, a ban isn’t justified. There isn’t enough evidence currently to say that fracking always contaminates surface wells, and there is very little evidence that wells are poisoned by fracking. In some cases where companies have been accused of damaging wells (16), the drilling was performed at shallower than normal levels (usually gas deposits are at about 10,000 feet below, underground water sits at about 1,000 feet). In any case, well damage has not been connected to fracking strongly enough to warrant a ban, but stricter regulation should be in place. If more research were to come along showing that all fracking, not just negligent fracking, damaged wells, a ban would be justified, but there is no evidence that that is the case. Overall, environmentally, fracking isn’t the best. It certainly isn’t the worst thing that we do. It is cleaner than burning coal, which is what it replaces. It has lowered carbon emissions for the US and made energy cheaper. When it is done responsibly there is little risk, and most of the risks have to do with well construction and depth. The main problem is that there isn’t enough information to justify banning fracking yet, especially because there is no consensus about critical issues like well contamination. The most important thing to note is that many of the problems could be fixed with regulations instead of ban, as regulations on fracking are pretty weak at the moment (as my opponent said, fracking is exempt from parts of 7 major statutes). If my opponents burden was that “fracking is bad” he’d have an easy win, but his burden is that there should be a ban. Based on all available current information, a ban would not be justified. So now lets discuss the economic benefits of fracking, and why a ban would not be so hot for the US. P2- Economy (brifely, because character limits)To start off, there are a lot of really obvious benefits to fracking economically. Besides being cleaner than coal, shale gas is cheaper, and this will result in $2,000 annual savings according the the IHS. Fracking itself supports roughly 400,000 jobs by itself (6) and a total of 2.1 million total jobs when all of the jobs associated with fracking are counted (19). If fracking is banned, these are immediate benefits that would be lost. Also, the expected growth from fracking, an industry that could support up to as many as 10 million jobs total in the future, would be lost. Even the US Chamber of Commerce has spoken on the issue, saying speculation about the dangers of fracking and stopping fracking could endanger the economy (6). US energy exports are also up as a result of fracking, which is beneficial for our economy (19). And although exporting carbon to other countries somewhat defeats the purpose of cleaning our own energy sources(7). , fracking still has a substantial net reduction for carbon emissions overall. A ban would really obviously be bad for the US economy, and since the environmental concerns aren’t really substanted as of yet, a ban really has no legs to stand on. Regulation would be wise and would allow the economic prosperity to continue, a ban would not. Another benefit of fracking is that it is easy to convert from coal to shale (6), and since the US needs a good bridge between the old and the new sources of energy, fracking can and does provide a cheap, clean way to provide energy while the US makes that transition. Obviously incentives will have to be created to switch from natural gas to cleaner energies, but that has always been the case. Until green power is cheap and efficient enough for companies to implement nationally with no economic risk then there is no reason shale gas should not be used for power. No more characters! Banning fracking would do bad, useless economic damage when the envorinmental justification for such a ban is so lacking and is nowhere near the standard it would need to be. 1-. http://www2.epa.gov...2-http://theenergycollective.com...3http://www.slate.com...4-http://reason.com...5-http://energyindepth.org...6-http://triblive.com...;7-http://bigstory.ap.org...;8-http://theenergycollective.com...;9-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;10- . http://cires.colorado.edu...;11-http://1.usa.gov...12-http://www.eenews.net...;13-http://www.economist.com...;14-http://bit.ly...15-http://bit.ly...16-http://www.npr.org...;17-http://www.gaslandthemovie.com...;18-http://bit.ly...19- . http://www.rtcc.org...;20-http://www.ihs.com...;

7e7e5efd-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00002-000

Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.

477c20d-2019-04-18T17:06:27Z-00005-000

Police misconduct has become rampant in the United States. Police officers break the law without care or concern because many of them know there will be no consequences.

60ef462d-2019-04-18T16:15:26Z-00001-000

You mentioned in your previous round that amending the Fourth Amendment will prevent criminals from getting away for the crimes they have committed; however, now you are claiming that reforming laws is not the solution to the problem. Subsequently, you changed it again and said that reforming the system is better than reforming the law. The system creates the law., therefore the law is the system. No matter how well-trained police officers are, if the people higher than them are loopholes, then they will be breaking laws. I believe that reforming the whole system perhaps in terms of replacing people in position will not be a smart idea because they will have the same power as the former elected officials and will most likely commit wrongdoings. Probable cause is not only used to determine and further prevent an on-going criminal activity but it is also used as a standard basis in a Grand Jury to prove that the crime has been committed. The United States federal government should decrease its power for they possess extremely high power that enables them to abuse it and further wrongfully enforce the law. Here are the lists of people who were in position and abused their power: http://newsone.com... The problem with stop-and-frisk is that police officers mistaken 'hunch' from probable cause. Police officers approach their targets having a 'hunch' and further trick them to develop from 'hunch' to probable cause. It is true that reasonable suspicion is the standard of proof for legal standard for arrests and warrants. However, under the Fourth Amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." The example about stop-and-frisk is totally relevant to the topic because this policy is very complex and complicated. Again, discussing how the police do their job is not irrelevant to the topic for the job they are operating is based on the laws created by the federal government. I was not implying to make any changes or reforms within the police system because whatever mistakes they do, the authorities on top of them should be blamed because they are ones who should supervising whether the police are correctly enforcing the law. You clearly did not address the situation I indicated about a girl named Tanya Weyker. If you are going to tell me how people do not follow traffic rules that is why they get pulled over and eventually arrested of drinking while intoxicated or driving under the influence, then tell me more about what happened in this incident. This police officer, who blew a stop sign then hit Weyker's car, cruelly arrested Weyker's for unreasonable and imprudent speed, operating while intoxicated, operating with PAC >= 0.08 < 0.10, causing injury while operating while intoxicated, causing injury while operating with PAC alcohol. In short, the case was not drop when the evidence is clearly on her side when her blood drawn resulted that she absolutely had no alcohol in her system. This is one of many incidents where the system abuses its power and put people into burden. Source: http://www.policestateusa.com... Current situation of the country: 1) Nation's debt: http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2) Unemployment rate: http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3) Economic stand: http://www.heritage.org... 4) Health care: http://aspe.hhs.gov... Here are the sources that you demanded. In response to your question, "Are you saying that with less authority the government would use its authority in "the right way," the answer is YES. This is because, too much authority results to an abuse of power. "What is 'the right way'?" The right way is not to extend the authority and abuse it for own's beneficiary. The United States federal government should decrease its authority because elected officials who possess an extreme power can not better our country by just looking at the current stand of it. In particular, law enforcement agencies have been abusing their power to ultimately convict an individual when they do not have enough evidence to do so. As of today, NYPD are facing million dollars of lawsuit against them for wrongfully enforcing the law. Source: http://www.nydailynews.com...

5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00003-000

A vegetarian diet is better than one of a meat eater's for various reasons, but in this argument I will stress on two.Animal Suffrage: Having a vegetarian lifestyle helps not only you as an individual, but also helps save millions of animals that get harmed and slaughtered yearly.It"s cruel and unethical to kill animals when vegetarian options are available.- Animals have emotions and social connections.- Scientific study shows cattle pigs and chickens and all warm-blooded experience stress, fear and pain- 35 million cows, 115 million pigs, and 9 billion birds killed for food each year.-; These animals should not have to die to satisfy an unnecessary dietary preference.-; Raising animals in confinement is cruel. -; 50% of meat produced in the United States comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Where animals live in filthy, overcrowded spaces. -; In CAFOs pigs have their tails cut off, chickens have their toenails and beaks clipped off, and cows have their horns removed and tails cut off with no painkillers. - Pregnant pigs are kept in metal gestation crates barely bigger than they are. - Baby cows raised for veal are tied up and confined in tiny stalls their entire short lives (3-18 weeks). Animals raised for food in US not slaughtered humanely.-HMSA (Humane methods of slaughter act) necessitates that cows be unconscious before slaughter to readuce suffering - Birds and pigs have no rules of such- And slaughter houses still mostly ignore HMSAHealth and Nutrition: A vegetarian diet gives one a complete nutrition with additional health benefits that meat cannot provide.- According to the American Dietetic Association, a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat eating diet because- Vegetarian diets meet protein requirements, provide all the essential amino-acids), and improve health. - It can also provide all the necessary vitamins, fats, and minerals, and can improve one"s health. - According to the USDA and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. - Studies have linked heme iron found in red meat with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancer. - Vegetarian sources of iron like leafy greens and beans contain non-heme iron. A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. -Meat has high renal acid levels which the body must neutralize by leaching calcium from the bones, which is then passed into urine and lost.- There are many sources of healthy vegetarian calcium including tofu, dark leafy greens like kale, spinach, and collard greens, as well as fortified cereals. A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease.- According to a peer-reviewed 1999 study of 76,000 people, vegetarians had 24% lower mortality from heart disease than meat eaters. -A vegetarian diet also helps lower blood pressure, prevent hypertension, and thus reduce the risk of stroke. Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.- A peer-reviewed 2004 study from Harvard researchers found that eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes in women - 2002 study found that eating processed meat increases the risk in men.- A vegetarian diet rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, and soy proteins helps to improve glycemic control in people who already have diabetes. Vegetarians live longer. - A Mar. 12, 2012 peer-reviewed study of 121,342 people found that eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease. - A peer-reviewed 2003 study found that adherence to vegetarian diets or diets very low in meat for 20 years or more can increase life expectancy by 3.6 years. - A peer-reviewed July 9, 2001 study of Seventh-Day Adventists who were vegetarian (or ate very little meat) showed longevity increases of 7.28 years for men and 4.42 years for women. - On June 3, 2013 a peer-reviewed study of 73,308 people found that a vegetarian diet is associated with a 12% reduction in all-cause mortalityA vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. - According to a peer-reviewed 2003 Oxford University study of 37,875 healthy men and women aged 20-97, 5.4% of meat eaters were obese compared to 3% of vegetarians.- Meat eaters had an average Body Mass Index (BMI) 8.3% higher than vegetarians.-Another 2006 meta-study that compiled data from 87 studies also found that vegetarian diets are associated with reduced body weight. [124] Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. - According to a peer-reviewed 1994 study by Harvard researchers, consuming beef, pork, or lamb five or more times a week significantly increases the risk of colon cancer. - The World Cancer Research Fund found that eating processed meats such as bacon or sausage increases this risk even further. - A 2014 study found that diets high in animal protein were associated with a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk compared to high protein diets based on plant-derived protein sources. World Hunger: Eating Meat uses up many of the plant resources and causes most third world countries to not be able to grow enough food. A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. - Over 10 pounds of plant protein are used to produce one pound of beef protein.- If these grains were fed to humans instead of animals, more food would be available for the 925 million people in chronic hunger worldwide. Research from Cornell University found that the grain used to feed US livestock alone could feed 800 million people.

cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00002-000

The US federal government does not have jurisdiction over prostitution.[1] In most states it is a misdemeanor in the category of public order crime.[1] [2] I assume he is simply stating that the exchange of sex for money should not be prohibited, making US law like Canadian law.[3] Countries like Canada with this policy have added laws to reduce prostitution because of the problems it brings. In Round 1 Pro made the following 4 points: (Grammar mistakes not corrected) 1. “If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange.” 2. “Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.” 3. "legalization makes prostitution safer" 4. “My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.” Government uses legislation to reduce harm. Legislation on guns, explosives, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and also prostitution fit here. To say “I should be allowed to purchase a nuclear warhead as a free exchange between two consenting adults” is ridiculous. Prostitution causes harm. Legislation is in place to reduce its frequency and the harm done. Pros point 2 shows that he agrees that some aspects of prostitution need to be illegal. Pro claims that legalization makes prostitution safer. He gives no evidence for this claim. The German experience is that legalization of prostitution INCREASED the death toll and violent crime, in part because of the increased numbers of prostitute. Pro says “government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.” Government should carefully consider which issues are so critical that they require legislation. There are such dangers involved in prostitution that it needs to be prohibited by law. Like impaired driving and public intoxication there is both public nuisance and potential for harm that seem to always accompany prostitution. Public nuisance and widespread harm are just two of the reasons that prostitution should NOT be legal. PRO contends that “Most prostitutes chose their profession.” Let me point out major faults with Pros interpretation of a study.[4] 1. There was a move from managed (brothel and escort) to private sector following decriminalization. Danger to sex workers from both violence and disease increase when the go from a “managed environment” to “private sector.” – “Street-based workers were more likely . . . to report refusal of a client to pay, having had money stolen by a client, having been physically assaulted by a client, having been threatened by a client with physical violence, having been held against their will and having been raped in the last 12 months.” 2. The sample was not a random. The majority of participants were white, “between the ages of 22 to 45 years, had entered the industry after age 18, and had education levels of at least three to five years at the secondary school level with many having tertiary levels of education” – the New Zealand study is irrelevant to our situation where our demographic is much different. 3. Even with these survey participants, the picture is horrifying. For example - “87% of all survey participants have a regular doctor but only half of these participants disclose their occupation to their doctor.” This means 13% have no doctor at all, and 51% have not told a doctor that they are in the sex trade. THIS IS AFTER LEGALIZATION! - “participants discussed not telling their doctor of their occupation because they thought that there was a stigma attached to sex work and also there was a fear that the knowledge of their occupation would affect their treatment for other health issues.” – Legalization will not change this, but will increase the number of sex trade workers. - “There was little difference in disclosure of occupation to health professionals in Christchurch participants pre- and post-decriminalisation.” - “over one tenth of participants reported not using protection at some time in the last 12 months” - “Clients frequently request sex without a condom.” . . . some “report doing the job without a condom but charging more.” - “Few participants reported adverse incidents that had happened in the last 12 months to the police.” – This dispels the myth (PROs claim) “If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested.” This study make me question the wisdom of those who say legalized prostitution will make it less of an issue for worker safety, client health, social health and the ability of workers to seek legal protection. Pro quoted the study about Germany’s failure: “Although prostitutes would like to work legally, they often decide not to do so, because local law officials stop them from doing so using local zoning laws.” This is a “red herring” argument. All legal businesses are required to obey local zoning laws. Street prostitutes don’t like being told by club owners that they can’t sell their products there. Brothel owners who want to put their businesses on Main Street. This is little different than someone setting up a hotdog stand (pun not intended) by city hall. Pro failed to counter the health risks of promiscuity. He claims “77.8% always use condoms.” This claim is likely high (error in self reporting is common). It assumes too high an effectiveness of condoms. It ignores the incubation period where diseased people show no symptoms. Look at the following statement by the Center for disease control (CDC).[5] - “condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.” [6] Pro failed to counter the link between prostitution and human trafficking. His claim that “Illegal immigrants cannot practice prostitution legally” is absurd. The US has 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants,[7] many working. The political situation around Germany effected the problem of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking happens now. If prostitution is legalized it will increase. Pro claims no “evidence that the legalization of prostitution leads to more rapes, human trafficking, or child prostitution.” This is false. Prostitution is a most dangerous business. More workers in the sex trade places more people at risk. An American study[8] found that prostitutes are 200 times more likely to die (when adjusted for age and race). In Germany the numbers of prostitutes grew ten times since legalization, much of that growth linked to human trafficking and coercion. [1] In USA – http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] In Canada - http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.otago.ac.nz... http://www.justice.govt.nz... [5] http://www.cdc.gov... [6] http://www.cdc.gov... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...

cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00003-000

View on prostitutes Opponents of legalization often depict prostitutes as helpless victims forced into prostitution at a young age. This view is exemplified by the column [5] that my opponent cites. I cite from that same article: “Prostitution turns women into lumps of meat that are bought and sold for the sexual gratification of men.” The author is disgusted by prostitution, and sees prostitutes as helpless, pathetic “lumps of meat”. Needless to say, that this is not how prostitutes would like to be seen. Most prostitutes chose their profession. The job usually earns them more money than any other job they can do. They often need money to pay for household expenses, or to pay for education etc. Making prostitution takes away their livelihood. To get an idea who these prostitutes are it is insightful to read the following survey of prostitutes in New Zealand. http://www.otago.ac.nz... 772 sex workers were interviewed. Some highlights: 73% of the prostitutes entered the profession for financial reasons. 82% of them were at least 18 when they entered the profession (contradicting the claim of my opponent that most of them entered the profession between 14 and 16), 3% has been raped by a client. 77.8% reported always using a condom. Prostitution is legal in New Zealand after the Prostitution Reform Act. Prostitutes have legal rights in NZ and they are well aware of it. The German experiment My opponent used his citation [8] for his argument that legalization in Germany did not work. This citation starts with: “Das Prostitutionsgesetz läuft weitgehend ins Leere, besagt die erste offizielle Studie über seine Wirkung. Schuld sei vor allem die Halbherzigkeit des Gesetzes.” My translation (the link for the Google translation did not work for me): “The prostitution law does not work, says the first official study about its effect. The primary reason is that the law is half-hearted.” So although the article says (in 2007, 5 years after the introduction of the law) that the law had not yet worked, it says that the main reason is that the law does not go far enough! The goal of the law was to recognize prostitution. 85.5% of the prostitutes welcomed the law as a first step towards recognition. Although prostitutes would like to work legally, they often decide not to do so, because local law officials stop them from doing so using local zoning laws. “Die Autorinnen empfehlen deshalb, die Entkriminalisierung der Prostitution weiter voranzutreiben. Sie raten vor allem, das Gewerbe mit einer Art Lizenz auszustatten. Diese sollten Betriebe und Huren erhalten, die gute Arbeitsbedingungen bieten und legal arbeiten.” My translation: The authors [of the study] recommend a continuation of the decriminalization of prostitution. In particular, they recommend the creation of some kind of license for the profession. These licenses will be given to brothels and hookers who work legally and have good working conditions. Risks of prostitution Prostitution, like some other professions such as law enforcement, fire fighter, is not without risks. But these risks easily can be exaggerated. My opponent goes on at length on the “risks of promiscuity”. The risk of STD’s can be reduced to a minimum by using condoms. Most prostitutes (77.8%) always use condoms, and the remaining prostitutes probably use them most of the time. Prostitutes (like fire fighters) should wear their protective gear to be safe at their jobs. The idea of legalization is to give licenses only to prostitutes who do their work safely. Prostitution and sex trafficking There is no convincing evidence that legalization of prostitution leads to an increase of sex trafficking. Illegal immigrants cannot practice prostitution legally, even after legalization of prostitution. The study [10] that my opponent cites is not very convincing. It is based on many assumptions and poor empirical data. They write: “As pointed out already, this means we cannot control for unobserved country heterogeneity. Also, while we have established that the legalized status of prostitution is associated with a higher incidence of trafficking inflows, a cross-sectional analysis cannot provide a conclusion as to whether legalizing prostitution would result in increased trafficking after legalization.” A lot of studies on the effect of legalization on sex trafficking has been done in countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark. These countries have legalized prostitution (although in these countries, prostitution was already decriminalized to an extend before complete legalization). These studies are in the early 2000s. However, it seems to me that these studies ignore major changes with regards to borders. Since the fall of the USSR, human trafficking has increased. Many countries in the European Union joined the Schengen agreement in the 2000s. This means, that many borders between European countries have been eliminated. It is not hard to imagine, that this is having a huge impact on trafficking. It is therefore not surprising to see, that there has been an influx of sex workers from Eastern European countries into the Netherlands and Germany. I think that the war in former Yugoslavia may also be a factor. There is no convincing evidence that the legalization of prostitution leads to more rapes, human trafficking, or child prostitution. Prostitution and crime If prostitution is illegal, then prostitution is crime. To decouple prostitution form criminal elements, we must legalize it. Also, both in countries with legalized and not legalized prostitution, prostitutes are often forced to do their work in bad neighborhoods with high crime rates. Prostitutes should be allowed to do their profession everywhere they want (indoors). Prostitution and drugs Although there may be a correlation between drug use and prostitution, there is no convincing evidence that prostitution causes drug use. Sometimes, people enter prostitution because of drug or alcohol use. According to the NZ survey, this was 21.4%. This is not a problem of prostitution, but of drug use. With regard to drug users going into prostitution there are two options: 1)Either, we believe they are unable to make good choices for themselves. In that case they should be locked up in a rehab institution until they are no longer a danger to themselves. 2)Or, we believe that they are able to make choices for themselves. In that case, we should not take away their livelihood.

cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00004-000

First let me outline my position. Prostitution should NOT be legal Legislation Helps Protect Society Health Issues of Promiscuity Links to Organized Crime and Use of Illegal Drugs Links to Sex Slavery Legislation Helps Protect the Vulnerable Men Using Their Wive or Daughters as Prostitutes Pimps Using Drugs and Physical Violence to Control Girls Child Trafficking Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution Forced Prostitution Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution The High Economic Cost of Sex Trade Medical Expenses for Participants Medical Expenses for “Second Hand” Victims I want to cover all the points above (unless there are some you wish to concede in the interest of saving space and time in the debate). First I want to look at the example of Germany’s recent change to legalize prostitution.The German Experiment. Historically prostitution was never outlawed in Germany. The took the position of Saint Augustine that prostitution should be tolerated. [1][2] by Governments. In the 1500s there was a change in attitude because of the Protestant reformation and the rise of syphilis. In the 1800s sex trade workers had to register with local police and health authorities. In the early 1900s the focus was on regulation (not abolition) and then government run brothels were common under Nazi rule. Later, in East Germany prostitution was illegal, but in West Germany it was regulated. In unified Germany prostitution was never fully illegal, but the rules varied by municipality. In 2002, Germany changed the law in an effort to improve the legal situation of prostitutes. [3] Let’s look at the results of the 2002 change in law. It is estimated that 400,000 work as prostitutes in Germany (Pop 89 million).[4] “It is a magnet for migrant sex workers, who are lured from their wretched villages in Bulgaria and Romania and turned into virtual sex slaves in Germany’s 3,000 brothels. Police are nearly powerless to help them.” - [5] Germany is finding that the current laws are not working, and have added more laws to refine what is legal and what is not. [6] [7] The German government (2007 report) concluding that few prostitutes had taken advantage of regular work contracts and that work conditions had improved only slightly, if at all The law has failed. Prostitutes themselves don't want to change their working conditions and contracts to the new (2002) legal status. [8] Prostitution should NOT be legal. It increases rape (non consensual sex). It increases human trafficking(sex slavery). It increases statutory rape (consensual sex with underage partners) The usual age of entry to the “profession” is between 14 and 16. It is linked with organized crime and drug trafficking even in places where prostitution is legalized and regulated. None of these are activities that governments should encourage.Lets look at some further reasons why governments should work to minimize prostitution. Legislation Helps Protect Society There are many health issues relating to promiscuity. Prostitution maximizes these issues. First lets look at Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Most STDs have an incubation time before they can be diagnosed. This means that a prostitute (lets say 2 partners daily) who will test positive for HIV after 3 weeks, may infect 42 customers before it is possible to detect that she is infected. There is no way to 100% prevent the spread of STDs. Here are some other medical risks of promiscuity: Prostate cancer, Cervical cancer, Oral cancer, Heart disease, Domestic violence, Unwanted pregnancy, Birth defects[9] There are consistent links to organized crime and use of illegal drugs. I assume we are agreed that organized crime and illegal drug use should be reduced if possible. The link between organized crime, human trafficking, illegal drug use and prostitution is made clear in a position paper from the London School of Economics. [10] Here are some points to ponder from that paper. * “legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industries” * “wherever prostitution is legalized, trafficking to sex industry marketplaces in that region increases” * “prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in persons” * democratic political regime experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking. It is inaccurate to think of prostitution as a single experience. In countries where it is legal there are freelance workers, brothel workers, workers with a “manager”. Many of the low end / low price workers are getting money for drugs. In Germany there is a huge problem with “narco prostitution” as the workers are in poor health, and many are victims of rape, murder and violence. In round 2 I plan to cover the issues listed below. Although I am against unnecessary government intervention, I believe the best way to reduce the harm done by prostitution is to criminalize the purchase of prostitution (Target the Johns as opposed to the sellers). Trades training could be offered to the sellers of sex services as a way to get them out of the sex business. FOR ROUND 2 Legislation Helps Protect the Vulnerable Men Using Their Wive or Daughters as Prostitutes Pimps Using Drugs and Physical Violence to Control Girls Child Trafficking Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution Forced Prostitution Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution The High Economic Cost of Sex Trade Medical Expenses for Participants Medical Expenses for “Second Hand” Victims[1] http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com...[2] Summa Theologica: Part II of book II, question 10, article 11 http://www.newadvent.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dw.de...[5] http://www.theglobeandmail.com...[6] http://www.examiner.com...[7] http://www.theguardian.com...[8] http://www.taz.de... Translated by Google[9] http://voxxi.com...[10] http://dx.doi.org...

fff53083-2019-04-18T12:26:39Z-00003-000

Neither the teachers nor the students should wear uniforms. It restricts freedom, promotes conformity over individualism, and neither stop bullying or improve test scores(or any other success metric).

a687b79a-2019-04-18T13:35:18Z-00002-000

I disagree. If citizens took part in law enforcement (other than reporting/giving tips, etc) then a lot of chaos would be caused. Look at bounty hunters for people who skip on their bail: they're allowed to do whatever they want, include breaking and entering, and that has caused so many problems. Some have injured people and others have killed pets accidentally, etc (1). I think that if regular citizens, who are untrained people, get involved in law enforcement then (a) They will hurt others because of their lack of expertise and (b) They will hurt themselves and possibly hinder investigations or such also because of their lack of expertise. They will be a liability. 1.

4aee98d6-2019-04-18T17:01:31Z-00001-000

What is your position on fighting drugs? Do you support the war on drugs and the policies in place or do you think it should be illegal but not criminalized? Please answer this in the next debate? Thanks I disagree with the your position that pot is worse than coverages and alcohol. No one has every died of the use of marijuana, ever. Thousands drink themselves selves to death every year and I'm sure we're both aware of how many die from cigarets each year. But, let's ignore the body count and focus on an individual's healthy risk. Cigarettes and marijuana have similar effects on someone's mouth. Let's compare getting g drunk to getting high, when's the last time you've heard of someone getting stoned and beating their spouse or getting in their car and killing thousands each year? Never, pot doesn't incapacitate and hurt you. 40% of people under 21 and a third of Americans have in their lives. Should we arrest them? Why is it the governments responsibility to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. If I'm not harming anyone else or not undergoing extreme personal harm, why should the government arrest me for smoking a plant the last three presidents have done. We can pass laws against getting high in public. And laws to limit advertising for it in public to assure that nobody is getting harmed. It's been fun. Please answer my question at the top. Thanks your turn

2b8acaa-2019-04-18T14:19:06Z-00005-000

PrefaceThis is a truly relevant issue, and a topic of major debate between liberals and conservatives. There is heated disagreement on the issue between the Democratic Party and Republican Party, and climate skeptics and modelers debate this over multiple studies based on empirical research. Due to this, I have decided to discuss this issue that is extemely relevant today. I hope for a great discourse. TheDebater_101 has asked to accept this debate. He is the only user with permission to accept this debate. Voters require a minimum Elo of 3000 to judge the debate. Full TopicOn balance, mankind is probably the main cause of global warming. TermsAll terms and definitions influenced by the Oxford Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia. On Balance - 'when all factors are taken into consideration'Mankind - 'the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind'Probably - 'is likely to take place or be true'Main - 'chief in size, extent or importance'Cause - 'the producer of an effect' or 'a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition'Global Warming - 'the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation,' and 'the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects'Rules1. No forfeits2. All arguments must be within this debate, but sources can be in an external link directed to within this debate3. No new arguments in the final round (except defending one's original arguments)4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other "kritiks")7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate9. The burden of proof is shared10. The first round is for acceptance only11. Violation of any of these rules or any of the R1 set-up is a conduct violation, and any violating arguments (e.g. "kritiks," rebuttals in R4) should be discredited by judgesStructureR1. Acceptance OnlyR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to TheDebater_101; I look forward to an engaging discourse!

b8d48a5b-2019-04-18T19:38:30Z-00003-000

"So in the same way, if you were forced to choose between one human life and several animal lives, for example, three fish, you should give preference to the higher number if you truly believed in the equality of humans and animals. No ethical person would kill a human being for the sake of three fish, and everyone would agree that it is the better decision." Of course, because of the inherent nature of every species to protect their own species, the answer to that question is obvious: kill the fishes. But does that signify that the value of the animal's life is any less? No. It means that humans purely have the instinctual predilection to protect members of their own kind, as do fish have the predilection to protect members of their own kind I would also like to introduce scientific points to supplement my ethical points about why we should not experiment on animals. Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health. Examples: The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities. Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred. You claim that if animal research is discontinued, it will be at the expense of human health and life. Industry groups, such as Americans for Medical Progress credit animal research with advances such as the development of the polio vaccine, anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin. But a close examination of medical history clearly disputes these claims. Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, are credited with the development of a vaccine to combat poliomyelitis (polio). Yet in the medical industry itself there remains a dispute as to the means by which the development of the polio vaccine occurred and whether or not the vaccine even played a major role in stopping the virus. Dr. John Enders, Dr.Thomas H. Weller, and Dr. Frederick C. Robbins won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for proving for the first time that it was possible to grow poliovirus in laboratory cultures of non-nervous-system human tissue. This team stopped just short of creating the polio vaccine that would be released to the public. Around the time Enders, Weller, and Robbins won the Nobel Prize, Sabin and Salk began using monkey kidney cells to produce their polio vaccines despite the existence of better alternatives. It was unknown at the time that viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells are now known to cause cancer in humans. The claim that the polio vaccine was developed through the use of animal experimentation is misleading. Furthermore, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is ample evidence demonstrating the harmful effects the polio vaccine has had on human health. Deborah Blum, in her 1984 book, The Monkey Wars, wrote, "In the late 1980s, scientists tracking the life histories of 59,000 pregnant women all vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine found that their offspring had a thirteen times higher rate of brain tumors than those who did not receive the vaccine." (pg. 229) Many historians believe that the decline in cases in polio, like many epidemics of the past, must be attributed to factors such as improved hygiene and not solely vaccination. Animal research is not aiding the fight against cancer. In fact, it is diverting resources from effective research and from the most obvious solution which is prevention. According to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of all cancers are preventable. Clinical observation and epidemiological studies have shown us that high fat diets, smoking, environmental pollutants, and other lifestyle factors are the main causes of cancer. Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., in his book, Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame, reports: "Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on laboratory animals between 1970-1985, only 80 compounds moved into clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer activity and only 12 appeared to have a 'substantial clinical role.' Actually, these so-called 'new' active agents were not so new: they are analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans." (pg.25) The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: "What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years". Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals. 1. PCP is a sedative for chimps 2. Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives. 3. Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep. 4. Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses. 5. Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate. The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health. There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long, long time. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes. Clearly, if you we are looking to make any progress in medicine, an entirely new approach is required. Human medicine should no longer be dependent on veterinary medicine. It is dangerous and fraudulent to apply data retrieved from one species to another entirely different species.

b72eb951-2019-04-18T19:45:34Z-00004-000

I'm going to begin by saying that my argument is going to be heavily based on economics. My opponent's initial argument is essentially that College graduates have more skills More skills lead to better jobs with more pay More pay leads to a boosted economy Boosted economy leads to technological and scientific development. Thus, the government should provide help to get most people into college. I find that this point of view is somewhat shallow and does not consider many of the details. I disagree with my opponent in that there ARE downsides. ************************************************************************* The government does not have an endless pool of money. Any funding it decides to give will come from the pockets of taxpayers. I will rule out the poor and the rich because the amount of tax money we get from both are negligible. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that the tax money comes directly from the middle class. Economically speaking, it is difficult to say whether or not we will get an economic boost from sending more people to college. Remember that the United States has an unemployment rate, meaning, there are more people actively seeking employment than there are jobs. My opponent's suggestion will basically enlarge the work force, putting out more workers with more skills. This will have a double effect. First, companies would hire more young, competent workers and fire older ones. This would probably shatter the lives of countless families in exchange for a minimal increase in output and a bit more profit generated from paying a young, fresh-out-of-college worker a lower wage than a seasoned worker. Second, job availability will shrink even further. If the government is funding college education for most people, competition will not go down since people are generally on the same level of competitiveness. People will still be unemployed, but now, college education may not be enough. 4 years of undergraduate would become a norm and in order to be hired for better pay, students might have to take several years of graduate courses just to make what they would consider "better pay". Thus, things would stay relatively the same if my opponent's plan to put the majority of people into college goes through. It's just that we would bankrupt the middle class in taxes by doing so. One year's college tuition is easily $25,000. Four years would be $100,000. And in order to keep paying for this education, everyone coming OUT of college and getting a job would have to pay massive amounts of taxes to pay for the people 4 years younger than they are. So they probably end up LOSING money since they gain very little and lose a lot. To pay the taxes, people will spend less, the demand curve shifts to the left. When demand shifts to the left, supply also shifts to the left. The market would essentially drop because people won't have any money to spend on anything but college.

872fb369-2019-04-18T17:52:20Z-00008-000

Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By "ethical" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a "meat-eating" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say "you can't survive without meat" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)

84b97490-2019-04-18T18:20:36Z-00001-000

Okay, it looks like my opponent has dropped all my points.Yes, yes, we all know about people who die of drugs. But who's fault is that? I already stated that it is a choice. Whether or not you make it illegal, players will still take steroids, it is inevitable. It's like how people take illicit drugs. These people know the consequence of the drug, yet they still take it. It's their choice that they want to harm their health.

84b97490-2019-04-18T18:20:36Z-00004-000

I don't believe that steroids should be legalized, no matter how many people say they should be. When I think of steroids, I think of a horrible, life-threatening drug. If anything, I believe the amounts of tests should be increased. Also, the penalties for testing positive should be much more enforced as well as serious. Now, as for all of you out there who still think they should be legal, just imagine yourself as an MLB player, How bad would you feel if you tested positive and were suspended? I know I wouldn't be that thrilled.

4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00004-000

Neilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) "As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process." Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' " says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are "exploring and experimenting" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. "There's been a definite shift the last two months," she says. "There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before." I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become "friends" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.

b835c0fa-2019-04-18T19:13:13Z-00002-000

I do not agree what so ever . prison is a different type of punishment yes people should have a punishment for there wrong doings but there are better ways to approach it rather than killing when we use lethal injection we are sinning the same as the person committing the crime I am not saying they should be let go with no punishment they should have to pay for what they have done but as I have said before two wrongs DON'T make a Wright.

440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00000-000

What people do not understand is that standardized testing is a waste of time due to the fact that the information on these tests are not relevant to the school curriculum and do not help the students in their life beyond high school whatsoever. Excessive testing may teach children to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. China displaced Finland at the top of the 2009 PISA rankings because, as explained by Jiang Xueqin, Deputy Principal of Peking University High School, "Chinese schools are very good at preparing their students for standardized tests. For that reason, they fail to prepare them for higher education and the knowledge economy."China is trying to depart from the "drill and kill" test prep that Chinese educators admit has produced only "competent mediocrity"" (1). Not only are these tests incompetent, they also create extra and unwanted stress on these children. Standardized testing causes severe stress in younger students. According to education researcher Gregory J. Cizek, anecdotes abound "illustrating how testing... produces gripping anxiety in even the brightest students, and makes young children vomit or cry, or both." On Mar. 14, 2002, the Sacramento Bee reported that "test-related jitters, especially among young students, are so common that the Stanford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do with a test booklet in case a student vomits on it" (2) Students do not need these tests, the stress that comes along with it, nor do they benefit the students in the least. Overall, standardized testing is not important to a students learning curriculum and should be taken away.

440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00002-000

Although the test grades would vary, it is unjust that all the states take different tests, making the comparison of the whole country unreliable and inconsistent. Each state develops its own NCLB standards and assessments, providing no basis for meaningful comparison. "A student sitting for the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is asked a completely different set of questions from a child in California taking the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test, and while the former includes essay questions, the latter is entirely multiple-choice" (1). All students should take the same test, only different levels of intelligence should be taken into consideration to test the level of education of a certain child. Standardized tests are also an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers for the results of their students scores. "According to a September 2010 report by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, over 17% of Houston teachers ranked in the top category on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills reading test were ranked among the two lowest categories on the equivalent Stanford Achievement Test. The results were based on the same students, tested in the same subject, at approximately the same time of year, using two different tests" (2). The method of judging a teacher by the scores of these students are not an effective way to do so, making the tests an unimportant task.

36edcc1c-2019-04-18T19:45:50Z-00003-000

I believe you shouldn't be able to use other peoples wealth and success.I think some people should just get a job and stop being lazy.

fc8d6188-2019-04-18T15:47:45Z-00000-000

I'm going to spend the time that I have this round rebutting my opponents points, and stressing my contentions. I'm going to go one by one with his points. "The act of learning is much harder than the act of doing" While this may be true, why do we have to stress our students out like crazy before they even get to the "act of doing". How will we even know that they will be able to handle it? There needs to be more time for fun and relaxation in the time that they are home. You can't function with very high stress levels. "Homework solidifies concepts in your mind" My rebuttal for this one will lead a little bit out of the debate realms, but I believe it is justified in the end. This is not true for all students. The students that are able to grasp the subject at hand do not need that extra work, because it it is just "busy work". Maybe instead of assigning homework, students should become more responsible and do the work if they feel that they need it. "Based on the current school set up homework is necessary. " Not much to say here besides maybe we need to change the school setup. Is it worth having our next generation and their parents stressed out from all the work? "Each class only get your attention for a small portion of the day" Again, this is a problem with the education system. Why stress out the students because the education system is not perfect. "Homework puts the student in a place of responsibility for their education" No, homework is forced upon the students, even the ones that do not need it. If homework was optional the students that do not need it would be able to be responsible and understand what they need and what they do not. So far this debate has lead out of the original path that I expected it to go, which is very amazing. It's awesome being able to think about the education system as a whole and it's impact on students, the homework levels, and the students stress levels because of it. I look forward to hearing my opponents rebuttals in the next round.

9d0255a5-2019-04-18T14:26:51Z-00001-000

Extend

1b3403d8-2019-04-18T14:28:00Z-00002-000

My opponent makes the claim that global warming is bad, and should be stopped. However, this is contingent on the existence of global warming. One of the claims of global warming is that it has accelerated the water cycle, and my claim is that global warming has not. If one of the claims of global warming is in doubt that it is reasonable to doubt that global warming exists as claimed. As for the quality of the water cycles nature as Good, or Bad that is irrelevant to this debate, and subjective. An accelerated water cycle would mean more fresh water, and many people are in need of more fresh water. However, it could also make large storms more prevalent for others. It is irrelevant since this debate is about global warming having caused it, and not about if it is good, or bad.

99d707d9-2019-04-18T11:07:54Z-00000-000

Thanks for accepting 1. Firearms stop 800k to 2 million violent crimes per year 2. Gun free-zones make up 93% of mass-shootings as well as mass shootings take place in high gun control areas like Connecticut. 3. Chicago and Baltimore, Two cities you mentioned as well as Detroit and D. C have strict gun laws and far above the national average for gun crime, Britain after banning guns saw a identical rate of decrease in crime as the U. S EXCPET for a 6 year period after banning guns where crime doubled, Australia gun control proved ineffective as Mexico. 4. The current system is a joke: All mass shooters passed a background check and in 2010, 80k prohibited people committed a felony while purchasing a gun while only 44 were prosecuted for it. 5. Demand what works: put armed security in schools, Fix the broken mental health system, Enforce the federal gun laws, Persecute dangerous people when they try to buy a gun and put every prohibited person in the current system since it only comes out if Politicians demand it. 6. Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. 7. Gun control has a long history of racism as well as the KKK is the first major gun control group in the U. S. 8. Assault rifles make up a small percentage of crime. Answer these questions If guns existed before, Why are we only seeing mass shootings now? What is your solution to disarming people?

b381c0ed-2019-04-18T16:54:48Z-00003-000

Thank you for your points and good luck. I believe that video games DO cause children children to commit crimes. Children get influenced by friends,family and society. But they also get influenced by television and video games. While some video games have educational content,many of the most popular games promote negative themes,such as: 1.The killing of people or animals. 2.The use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. 3.Criminal behaviour and disrespect of the law. 4.Sexual exploitation and abuse towards women. 5.Racial,sexual and gender stereotypes. 6.Foul language. All of these things can affect the child's brain. Yes it is just a video game,but MOST children take these negative themes out in real life. Studies show that children exposed to violence can become: 1. "Numb" to the horror of violence. 2. More aggressive. 3. depressed. Some children accept violence as a way to solve/handle problems. If children think that violence is a way to solve/handle things,they will cause crimes. If children think that the killing of people or animals are all right they will cause crimes. It affects the brain causing them to think its right and actually doing it in real life,thinking its fun. There has been heaps of real life incidents of children being violent in real life due to playing video games After students Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris opened fire in their Colorado high school in 1999 -- shooting 20 people and killing 13 -- Linda Sanders filed a lawsuit. Her husband was a teacher at Columbine and among the dead. The media revealed that Harris and Klebold played a lot of violent video games, including "Wolfenstein 3D," "Doom," and "Mortal Kombat." Sanders named multiple video game publishers, including Sony and Nintendo, in the suit as well as Time Warner and Palm Pictures since the shooters had apparently watched "The Basketball Diaries," in which a character uses a shotgun to kill students at his high school. So in conclusion, video games DO cause children to commit crimes. Thank you

a03f5d1-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00002-000

Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.

eb28d053-2019-04-18T16:08:34Z-00002-000

VaguenessI do not believe I have been vague in my previous statement, I believe I have been very clear. We are arguing over two possible worlds, one with "Livestock" slaughter and one without. I think Con is confusing vagueness with choice, I propose that a world with a variety of methods and food sources is preferred to one with limited choice. I cannot see any point made within my arguments where "shrub and insect alternatives seem mutually exclusive" I request Con to clarify what aspects of these they are referring to as being unable to co-exist.Theme 1: ChoiceFrom Con's statements, there seems to be no consideration to the impact on people that do not want this world. I am not arguing, solely on the basis of peoples opinions but on the impact this change would have. A world that involves limiting what people can or cannot do involves a restriction in free choice. I asked for clarification of "ought to" for a reason, it is subjective and provides no clear ground for debate.The reason I brought in government enforcement goes back to the fact that even if the majority of people chose not to eat meat there would still be some that wanted to. If not by government enforcement how would this world come to fruition?Theme 2: Health Evolution Con has simply dismissed by arguments without providing any rebuttales Our bodies are not designed for a purely vegetarian diet, It is difficult to get all the beutriants we need from a vegetrain diet due to this. Heart failure/diseaseCon claims I have not given methods for reducing the Diseases yet I did provide two and gave links. My argument around "livestock" diseases being caused by cramped conditions were clearly stated. The solution is clearly to reduce the cramped conditions and this would easily be achieved with a reduction in meat consumption. Diseases cannot be eliminated only reduced, so we are talking about two different worlds, both containing diseases. If we had more pressure on the amount of plant based food we had to produce, there would be an increase in the amount of diseases from these food sources, as shown by the same reference. Disease is caused by population density not by the consumption of meat whether the population be plants or animals.To quote con, "Significantly reducing this will save hundreds of thousands of lives" I agree completely, however, eliminating it will have no benefit above this.NutrientsCon has not provided any evidence showing a vegetarian diet has a better nutritional content to that of a largely vegetarian diet. Con also has not address my points around the increase difficulty in achieving a balance diet when solely consuming non-meat products. Con also has not address my point that the majority of people fail to choose a balanced diet while we have more choice and that in limiting the choice this would actually worsen.Theme 3: EnvironmentGlobal WarmingAll animals produce CO2 whether farmed or not, so by Con's arguments we should kill all the animals on the planet including humans. Con has provided much the same argument as they have previous and not provided any details of how completely stopping livestock farming will be better than massively reducing it. Again elimination of livestock farming would not stop methane and CO2 production just reduce it, so why is this beneficial over reducing the impact of livestock farming and the scale of livestock farming.http://www.agr.gc.ca...PollutionTo address the point raised by con, I give you a breakdown of fertilizers currently used to grow crops to levels currently in demand. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu... Nitrate and ammonia pollution would only rise with crop farming increasing.From link originally supplied by con with regards to pollution http://www.nrdc.org...All the issues here can be linked to one of the following, population density, poor livestock management, isolated incidents. These kind of issues are not isolated to livestock farming either http://www.huffingtonpost.com...BiodiversityImpact caused by scale, all human activity has impact on these thing, stopping livestock farming does not stop the impact, reducing livestock reduces the impact. Game meat deliberately kept for feeding to endangered species would be livestock being slaughtered.Theme 4: "Livestock"I did not say we should ignore them but I request some sort of proposition as to how what you suggest animal voting would be achieved. Give animals a vote and they would vote to kill their predators and competitors in order to improve their own survivability. Death Slaves The meat industry seeks to sell meat not death, death is just inevitable in the process. The meat industry does not reduce life, I take you back to the 8.6 billion chickens, 239 million turkeys, 113 million pigs, and 33 million cows you mentioned, these animals would not exist if not for livestock farming,And again I ask you to tell me what would happen to these animals in a world without livestock farming? "Life in the industry thus becomes merely a means to more death" - All life is followed by death Bad Faith Claims There are methods for killing livestock do not involve pain. Rationality within animals effects this discussion how? We do not consume animals solely based on their intelligence levels but based on sustinance. Animals with the power to do so kill for the benefit of their species. (in particular mammals, group survival is a relatively recent concept in terms of evolution) If the animal within it's mind feels as free as it does in the wild, or even more due to the lack of predators, then where is the sufforage? All mammals have social structures of some form or another, I fail to see the bearing. The majority of these arguments could equally be applied to plant life and I request that Con provides good reason for killing plants over killing other lifeforms. All animals eat other living this, most living things consume other living things, why draw the line at the point that you have given, the plant/animal border? Where would the following fit in your world?http://www.livescience.com...http://news.discovery.com...http://www.sciencedaily.com... The universe operates on a grey scale while we try to make everything black and white, considering we have yet to define life itself, I don't see how we can make a clear distinction between killing of plants or animals. SummaryEverything Con has argued could be achieved by a reduction in meat consumption and an improvement in methods used. If we were to reduce meat consumption by 99% all of the issue rasied by Con would be reduced to a point where the were negligable, although at the same time the impact from crop farming would rise. With the complete removal of livestock farming. I ask Con to provide reason to go that extra 1%. I see a world with reduced meat consumption as a better world to one without it.

895c19ea-2019-04-18T18:24:17Z-00006-000

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening argumentRound 3-5: Rebuttals

95a04ba1-2019-04-18T18:22:05Z-00006-000

As noted prior, I concede Pro's personal health arguments (e.g., increased risk of lung cancer, nicotine problems).The Normative Contingency Thesis All value systems are predicated necessarily on some fundamental value. In the general domain of logic--including the domain itself--particular systems are established by assuming at least one axiomatic statement, e.g., "Human life is a primary value", or "A is A". In any case in which something is asserted as axiomatic, one cannot argue, from within the system whose origin is that axiom, about the truth-value of that axiom, given that the originary function of that axiom is to permit the development of a system of deductions. To argue about the proposition "human life is valuable" in a system whose fundamental axiom is such is much like arguing over the logical status of "A is A" (one cannot argue against it, since one must assume it to be true to employ deduction). In other words: one cannot treat the axiom(s) of a given deductive system as a conclusion derived within that system. This explains how two individuals can be "logical" while at the same time reaching divergent conclusions: supposing I take "God exists" as axiomatic, I might reach different normative conclusions than someone who takes secular epistemic standards as axiomatic (since these kinds of standards are almost certain to produce athestic or otherwise skeptical belief-commitments). To adjudicate between two or more possible axioms, one may widen the circle by appealing to a larger external system; however, this system is itself subject to the criterion of agreement over axioms, lending the question of contingency a decisively Gödelian tone. Formulating more clearly the normative contingency thesis: all systems of ethics rely necessarily on an agreement (between the participants in discourse) over the axiom whose assumption permits valid normative deductions. The corollary to this, which is critical to the following stage of my argument, is: for any two participants in discourse, failure to agree on an axiom precludes the possibility of meaningful discourse between those participants. In what manner does this thesis bear on our debate, then? Extrapolating from the criteria for meaningful discourse, it seems as though the only requirement for my victory is a refusal on my (or anyone else's) part to accept Pro's axiom claim. This is precisely my intention. When I assert, however, that it is "not logical" to prefer Pro's implicit axiom, which seems to be something like "Maximizing longevity is a primary value" (or, yet more generally, "One's own life is most valuable"), it is not to say that it is internally contradictory, or that it violates some rule of deduction; rather, I mean to say that there is nothing in the wider system of logic, in which Pro's axiom claim is situated, which implies that maximization of longevity is a necessarily true proposition. While it is difficult to contest the notion of identity (i.e., "A is A") without making communication impossible, I suspect Pro and I do not agree entirely that maximization of longevity should be a similar axiom, much less that a normative impetus to such could be deduced from any axiom to which I would agree. In economics, the concept of tradeoffs/opportunity costs indicates that, in any case where an agent makes some choice X, that choice necessary gives up all other possible opportunities Y, Y', Y', etc. While we might think "The decision to smoke is irrational because it shortens life/is unhealthy", there really is not some objective way of arbitrating the dispute between smoking and the opportunity costs one incurs in pursuing recreation in that way. In other words: one cannot claim that smoking is "irrational" without an implicit, axiomatic claim to value from which such conclusion could be deduced. One could, of course, propose all sorts of objections. One could say, for instance, that a smoker really is making suboptimal decisions, citing nicotine addiction, increased stress, risk of cancer, etc. Pro seems somewhat to have adopted this route; however, the reply is always the same: one cannot indict some choice framework in terms of some different choice framework, since the fundamental quibble merely reduces to "This axiom is better than that one", a claim which is itself contained in an axiomatic system external to the framework being advanced. Another objection, which I think is stronger, is that the smoker himself may prefer a world in which he has quit to one in which he has not. The reply here is twofold: first, this is primarily an inductive claim which could be formulated as: "Since many smokers would probably regret smoking X years down the line, individuals ought not smoke." Intuitively, we may, given that this argument relies on the smoker's own choice framework, be inclined to agree; however, this argument seems to ignore outliers and counterexamples. The proper argument, I think, would be, "For any smoker who would regret smoking X years down the line, the same individual(s) ought not smoke." This seems to hold--somewhat, at least--for individual cases; it does not, however, hold as a universal normative principle. Nevertheless, even this claim runs into my second objection, that there are serious bounding issues. What are the boundaries, for instance, on the number of years (signified by X) before or after which a smoker must feel a general sense of regret to justify the individuated normative claim that he/she should not smoke? Further, supposing that a subject's regret is offset some by the desire to keep smoking, how do we draw boundaries on how much regret is required before the normative claim applies? If we try to make statistical, "51%" kinds of arguments, how do we quantify inherently qualititative experiences, e.g., regret vs. craving (not to mention the marginalized or excluded emotions which are likely to play a causal role in a subject's final decision). One other interesting bounding issue comes up when considering the arguments about damage to a smoker’s surroundings in the form of fires and (presumably) secondhand smoke. There seems not to be a method of determining the extent to which one ought to refrain from some action in light of its potential negative repercussions. The drawing of a threshold between someone smoking cigarettes and operating a vehicle seems, therefore, somewhat arbitrary. Surely, if individuals stopped driving cars, the quantity of car accidents (i.e., deaths) would decrease; yet, I suspect that Pro is unwilling to concede to juridical or ethical prohibitions on driving. This makes it difficult to articulate precisely the point at which it becomes impermissible to perform an action. Questions such as “How many deaths are permissible?”, “How high does the risk of an accident have to be?”, etc., spring immediately to mind. Even supposing that the bounding issue is solved, however, I may still recourse to normative contingency and the universality problem: On the one hand, supposing that we agree to an axiom like “one ought never harm other individuals”—which seems to underlie Pro’s claims about interpersonal safety—moral imperatives such as “Smokers ought to be more careful” or “Smokers ought only to smoke in designated areas” are the best arguments Pro will have to work with, particularly given the very technical sorts of solutions which would be required to solve the bounding issue without concluding that any potential hazard to others’ safety ought to be banned. On the other hand, given that not all smokers are guilty of starting fires, killing others with secondhand smoke, etc., it seems as though there are at least some cases in which Pro’s factual claims are inapplicable, which implies further that the moral prohibition on smoking, insofar as it is predicated on interpersonal safety concerns, cannot be extended to individuals to whom these concerns do not apply.

8319c6c-2019-04-18T14:13:06Z-00005-000

I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised would be exempt from compulsory vaccines. "compulsory (k!5;m-p$5;lR42;sor-ē) 1. Compelling action against one's will. 2. Required."[1] "vaccine [vak-sēn"] a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases." [2] "immunocompromised [imR43;u-no-kom"pro-mīzd] having the immune response attenuated by administration of immunosuppressive drugs, by irradiation, by malnutrition, or by certain disease processes such as the viral infection that produces the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)." medical-dictionary [3] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

35e7fa17-2019-04-18T14:50:38Z-00000-000

Imminent threatIn round 2, Pro said, "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."But then, in the next round he argues "How are students supposed to get a warning of a danger? If a criminal brings in a gun into campus, they only have several minutes to react. They aren't given a 24 hours notice."He's contradicting himself. If educators feel that there isn't an imminent threat, then they're fine to ban guns. That means that students would all be on campus unarmed. If there suddenly WAS an imminent threat, it wouldn't make sense for everyone to go home or to a gun shop in town, arm themselves and come back. Instead, they should just go home period. A college isn't a war zone. Law enforcement professionals should deal with the imminent threat.Low rates of crime on campusPro has cut and pasted a list of incidents where students use guns to threaten, injure and kill people. None of those incidents happened on campus and so they are irrelevant to the current topic. For instance, people are far less likely to get caught up in road rage on a college campus than they would be on, say, a highway.Pro's own source acknowledges that there is a far lower rate of crime on college campuses than in the rest of the United States (1). Therefore, it makes no sense to use off campus crime as an example of what could happen on campus.Legal ownersIt's true that it would be perfect if we could ban all guns from college campuses, and Pro is right that sometimes people will still smuggle in guns even when there is a ban. Unfortunately, illegal activity will occur sometimes. Passing legislation that forces universities to allow permit-holders to bring guns onto campus will do nothing to prevent illegal guns either. It will just increase the total number of weapons on campus.Among the examples that Pro cut-and-pasted, there was one where students "overwhelmed a man and took away his firearm". That could happen, presumably, to any of the permit-holding gun-weilding students too: they could be overwhelmed and their firearm taken away. SummaryMost college students and staff do not want guns on campus. We know this because in states where colleges can make their own choice in the matter, they overwhelmingly choose to ban guns on campus. Even Pro agrees that this is the right thing for them to do when there is no imminent threat, and his own sources agree that campuses have relatively low rates of crime. Pro has given no reason to depart from the status quo.Thank you tajshar2k for this debate. (1) http://concealedcampus.org...;

35e7fa17-2019-04-18T14:50:38Z-00002-000

Pro said: "Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns."This is a concession. If it's fine for a university to ban guns, then that directly contradicts the resolution that CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges/universities.The only exception Pro admits is when there is "an imminent threat". I will discuss this exception further below.Pro said: "I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW."It's not okay to change the resolution of a debate halfway through. This debate is not only about state bans, but about whether CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at colleges and universities, which includes all the laws and regulations in relation to that.An imminent threatPro has conceded that it's fine for guns to be banned on college and university campuses when there is no imminent threat. However, I suggest that when there IS an imminent threat to the safety of staff and students, it would be far better for security to be maintained by trained law-enforcement professionals.Further, I suggest that when there is an imminent threat to safety, that students and staff should stay away from campus until it is resolved. 2nd amendmentThe 2nd amendment is not an unconditional right. Prisoners, the mentally ill, children, etc., are not allowed to carry guns and there are restictions on the types of weapons people are allowed to own (1). Furthermore, most states have restrictions on taking weapons to places such as daycare centres, schools, hospitals and government offices (2).As was pointed out in United States vs Miller, the 2nd amenment only guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms only in "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". (1)Therefore, exceptions to the right to bear arms are consistent with the 2nd amendment. Pro has conceded this point already when he said that it was fine for universities to maintain bans on guns when there is no imminent threat.(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu...(2) http://www.salon.com...

35e7fa17-2019-04-18T14:50:38Z-00003-000

I thank my opponent for this debateLet me start of with my rebutallsCurrently, most states either prohibit guns on campus or allow universities to make their own rules about it Its fine whether a univerisity chooses to ban guns. If the educators feel there isn't an immenent threat, then there is no reason for students and staff to carry guns. I probably should have been more clear, but I will be arguing that there shouldnt be a state ban on CCW.The overwheming majority of college presidents and students don't want guns on campus.The source you provided only applies to the University of IowaIt would also make legitimate law enforcement more difficult The article is only saying that it makes the lives of cops harder. But, what if the shooter is stopped by a CCW owner? The life of a student is more important than making a cops life easier.I will now argue that CCW is beneficial at colleges.Gun bans only prevents legal gun owners from possessing guns Laws that restrict CCW only prevent legal gun use, because those who intend on using a gun illegally will ignore the rules anyway. In the link below, It shows how gun bans didn't work in stopping the killer. So another point, that CCW can prevent huge killing sprees from taking place.http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...2nd AmmendmentThe right to bear arms is in the 2nd ammendment. If all 50 states allow CCW, why should the rules be different when it comes to College?

2336dfdf-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00004-000

========== His Conclusions ========== A) "My opponent is not topical" How does he draw the conclusion that I am off topic? "He doesn't show how sending students to a school of their choice means they are obligated to take an exit exam. " Except, I am fairly certain that I've already said: "[Exams] give us an objective way to measure the quality of education across school systems in order to choose the best school to go to. " The ability to choose between schools is useless if you have no means to evaluate which is better. In a world without exams, for example the one my opponent advocates, you go by the strength of their ad campaign or their reputation. The purpose of exams is to give us a means to evaluate the ability of these schools to teach, not just advertise. === B) "He has no way to evaluate impacts; he can't hijack my case as my case and his are mutually exclusive" Of course our cases are mutually exclusive, and mine is clearly better. I'm not trying to "hijack" anything. Anyways, let's see how we should evaluate impacts in this round. He gives us a value and criterion of Education through stopping government monopoly. My argument was quite simple: stopping government monopoly leads to worse education. This means the better he achieves his criterion of stopping the government monopoly, the worse he achieves the value of education. You simply vote for me if exams lead to more government monopoly, and his contention 2 says they do. === C) "I have proved that in the US (the limits set by the resolution) government monopoly of schools and exit exams are always bad. " "He fails to provide any statistics as to how this new plan will cost" My plan is to let students go to whatever school they want. This saves the government money because they don't need to spend on verifying that the students live where they say they do. -Contention One, Subpoint 1: He tries to use the example of other countries to prove his point. When I show that this actually proves my point, he decides to claim that we can't use other countries as an example. An important part of debate as a competitive activity is reciprosity. Anything he can do, I can do. If he can prove his point by comparing us to other countries, so can I. HE NEVER DENIES MY ACTUAL POINT, THOUGH. My point was, other countries do better than us and they all provide public education. If we want to succede, privatizing education wouldn't make sense. This means that this point is still a reason to vote for me. --- -Contention One, Subpoint Two This is a poor argument if I ever did see one. "government mandated standards are always bad" "[Warren and Grodsky] clearly state that any time a government runs a test it will always lower the standards. " For clarification, his card actually says: "politics wins out over principle and the exit exam, the passing threshold, or both are altered to increase the share of students that passes the exam" We live in a (democratic) government run by the people. If we can easily recognize the problem (that the standards are too low), then we can fix it. Further more, this doesn't actually say that the standards are unreliable like he claims it does, just that they are too low. It still remains that a single, national standard made with collective imput from multiple teachers, professors, and professional test makers (like the SAT is) will always win out in reliability in comparison to exams that vary by teacher or by school. THIS IS STILL A TURN FOR ME. A single, collective standard is much more reliable than everybody just choosing their own standard which means these exams will always be the better solution for providing accountability. --- -Contention Two "Policymakers are the ones who set the standards, and thus they always set them at point too low. If you uphold a government monopoly in the US, the standards will always be bad. " This is his only justification, he just restates it a bunch of times: "He can't just magically "set the bar higher" for many reasons" "politics will always win out over educational principle" "even if the standards are set high initially, they will always be lowered due to high failure rates" We are in a democracy. Elect the people who will solve the problems. If the standard isn't being raise, call up your senator and tell him so. The politicians don't control us, we control them! ====== My Case ====== "On his first point: A: We live in a capitalist society. Schools have the right to do that. " That doesn't make it a good thing. It's certainly a problem, and you're conceding that. "B: This argument is non-unique. There will be rich and poor schools regardless of which side you vote for. " The government can't arbitrarily kick people out of the public schools. It isn't a private enterprise. The problem is private schools simply saying "you can't be here because your low grades reflect poorly on us. " The government can't do that, so it is quite "unique. " "C: Look to the turn I make on his framework; if students get to choose, then schools percieved as "good" will become flooded with students, leaving poorer students in the "poor" schools to suffer. " There is no reason why the poor students wouldn't go to the better educated schools also. --- "On his second point: A: This is a self-contradiction. He claims that students who don't go to private schools due to costs get a "2nd rate" education in the public system. He is admitting government schools are bad. This turns this argument against him. " 1st class education = the rich private schools 2nd class education = poor private schools I said nothing about government schools being bad. "B: The fact that people are poor doesn't mean they are dehumanized. In fact, by saying that is so, my opponent is contradicting himself again. " I fail to see how this is me contradicting myself. I also fail to see how either of these address my argument. What I said was: in a system where more money can buy you more education, the poor just stay poor and the rich get rich. He never denies this, he just beats around the bush, saying things like: "Ha, my opponent admits the government is bad! " or "well, just because the poor stay poor doesn't necessarily mean they are dehumanized. .. " The problem still remains, if we don't have a government monopoly, we'll see education divided into social classes rather quickly. ====== Summary ====== This debate really has come down to whether government monopolization is good or bad. I'm winning every argument so far for why it's good: His subpoint 1 compares countries. This analysis clearly shows that public > private. He doesn't deny it. He just makes the absurd claim that, because the resolution says US, comparisons to other countries somehow aren't allowed. His subpoint 2 demands accountability. One collective standard > 1,000 individual standards. We can't even compare 1 score to another if they are on 2 different tests. Having a single, standardized exam provides more accountability here. His contention 2, he admits, isn't an independent voting issue. It operates on the assumption that government monopoly is bad. I am winning every other argument in round, so there's every reason to assume otherwise. My contention says that the poor are stuck in poverty without the system I advocate. He makes pointless assertions like "that will happen anyway" or "that's not exactly dehumanizing" without addressing the real problem of our society being divided into social classes. I am winning offense on every contention, including his, to show that my plan is superior. He says my plan is mutually exclusive to affirming, and it is. We can't have my plan if we affirm. Every point in this debate shows why my plan is superior to affirming. With that in mind, the only logical option, then, is to negate the resolution.

39648fb-2019-04-18T14:28:50Z-00003-000

R1: Income tax reductions increase economic growth, Income tax increases reduce economic growthCon claims that income tax reductions increase economic growth, while income tax increases reduce economic growth. This is true -- but this is not what trickle-down does. Trickle-down economics instead reduces the marginal income tax for the highest earners. [1] There is no evidence to suggest that trickle-down economics increases economic growth for the majority, as can be seen by the following graphs: "Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole." [2]R2: Corporate tax reductions increase growthCon claims that corporate tax reductions increase growth. Again, he confuses the issue - as tax reductions for the whole are quite different from tax reductions for the few wealthy. There is no dispute that cutting taxes for the average worker will bring economic benefits. The debate at hand, however, is whether or not economic benefits given specifically to the wealthy, as outlined in my 1st round definition of trickle-down economics, helps the economy as a whole. The answer is no."A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy." [3]"A 2015 report by the International Monetary Fund found that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down." [4]My Arguments Against Trickle DownC1: Trickle-down economics does not lead to increased growthA recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth. [5] "A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth." History has shown us that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy has no correlation to overall GDP growth [6]: C2: Trickle-down economics leads to severe income inequalityThe highest-earning 20 percent of Americans have been making more and more over the past 40 years. Over the same 40 years, the lowest-earning 60 percent of Americans have been making less and less. [7] Ever since the implementation of reaganomics, deregulation and massive tax cuts for the wealthy, income inequality has increased tremendously and only seems to be getting worse. "A new study of income inequality in developed nations, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that the more top tax rates are cut, the greater the share of national income that is mopped up by the wealthiest citizens." [8] "Slashing top tax rates has had none of the positive effects on economic growth that the supply-side economists promised us, the NBER paper points out. Instead, it has just worsened income inequality." [9]C3: Trickle-down economics leads to economic recessionsThe growth of income inequality in the United States under trickle-down policies can only be described, as economist Robert Reich has stated, a suspension bridge [10]: We see the starting reality that, as income inequality increases, economic instability increases. Both in 1928 and 2007, when the economy was hit with severe recessions, income inequality was at a record high. As with any laissez faire economic system, the economy endures boom-bust cycles [11] - and this is exactly what happens under trickle-down economics. C4: Trickle-down economics doesn't even trickle downAs the evidence I've included above supports, there is no evidence to suggest that economic benefits given to the wealthiest seriously help those in lower income brackets. "Researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits." [12] Additionally, as I've stated above, "a 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does nottrickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy." "When the Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts in 2003, they promised massive economic growth. The notion that cutting taxes for the rich would "lift all boats" turned out to be sheer fantasy. The Bush years were the first period in modern American economic history to experience zero private sector job growth -- zero." [13] Under trickle down economics, we have not seen anything trickle down. Even worse, the lives of those unlucky unwealthy have gotten worse, as real U.S. wages have stagnated and fallen in recent decades [14]: Conclusion:The evidence is pretty plain to see: whatever you want to call it, trickle-down, supply-side, or reaganomics, it does not nor has it ever worked. The effects of reducing the tax burden on the wealthy and deregulating the private sector does not lead to increased growth for the majority of people, drastically exacerbates the issue of income inequality, leads to "boom-bust" cycles commonly seen in laissez-faire capitilalism, and all in all, doesn't even trickle-down. Under the "Pareto Principle," so kindly defined by my opponent, it seems obvious that this system cannot be defined as "good" for anyone other than the richest and wealthiest of society. The overwhelming body of economic evidence supports the fact that trickle-down economics is not morally nor economically sustainable, and is a failed system. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.faireconomy.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.imf.org...[5] https://www.imf.org...[6] http://www.decisionsonevidence.com...[7] http://web.stanford.edu...[8] http://www.nber.org...[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[10] http://inequalityforall.com...[11] http://www.forbes.com...[12] http://money.cnn.com...[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[14] http://www.nytimes.com...

ab7928ea-2019-04-18T13:32:57Z-00008-000

1) Are you analyzing morality from a consequentialism or deontology view point? 2) How does negating actually systematically oppress a group of people? 3) If one's ability to protect themselves is downgraded by affirming wouldn't that be oppressive to people who can't protect themselves as well? 4) If affirming creates injustice and unequal societal order can you still uphold any of your framework? 5) In contention 1, you talk about femicide. How are they oppressed when a handgun is the most practical gun for their own self defense due to its conceal-ability and portability? ( would you really want to bring a rifle on your midnight walk? ) 6) In your points about violent feelings and femicide, why is a hand gun any different than other guns. (your own analysis) 7) If a handguns ban is indeed undemocratic for any reason wouldn't it be oppressive to affirm? 8) You argue that a ban reduces crime and black market. Wouldn't it actually be giving the guns directly to criminals and our of the hands of the good since criminals are okay with committing crime and the good would comply? 9) Due to conflicting statistics about homicide should this be considered a mute point in this debate? 10) Are you aware that your arguments about Australia enacted a complete firearm ban, not a hand gun ban?

e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00004-000

The argument is titled "There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century' I am going to argue there is strong evidence to support the death penalty. Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement. The studies clearly show that when the death penalty is removed the murder rate goes up. A prime example is that of the uk. In 1965 when the death penalty was removed murder rate in the uk increased and is still to the current day far higher than it was in 1965 when the death penalty was removed. Take for example the Boston bombings why should the farther of the 8 year old child killed have to pay for his sons murder to be kept in prison for the rest of his life paying for his food , clothes, heating , and people to guard him to make sure he does not get back into the community and kill again. You advance the notion "" punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity"" but fail to meet the burden of proof thus making the argument redundant. "" I contend against the necessity of this peace, happiness and well-being. What objective reason is there for humanity's survival? Do any of the categories of crime really matter?"" Just because this is your view does not mean it is a universal fact and again you fail to meet the Burdon of proof. You have therefore put forward two of your own opinions without proof or reason other than ""this is what you think therefore it must be so"" to back them up factually .

ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00000-000

I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)

ca9c6b9f-2019-04-18T11:12:56Z-00004-000

Style. "Some accessories for girls are considered inappropriate. " - Would you like to list some examples? I knew a girl that always stayed fresh at school even with uniforms. Bracelets, Necklaces, Earrings, Things of that nature. I never heard of a school that somehow restricts accessories (boy or girl) I assume we are from completely different parts of the world. Are you not allowed to wear a scarf? Why wear uniforms? Reiterating point: All comes down to following the rules and teaches you lessons. Pros for uniforms: 1. School uniforms keep students focused on their education, Not their clothes. 2. Uniforms create a level playing field among students, Reducing peer pressure and bullying. 3. Wearing uniforms can enhance school pride, Unity, And community spirit. 4. Uniforms make getting ready for school easier, Which can improve punctuality. 5. Students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. Bullying. I agree with your point on this. There should be a bullying debate on here, That would be interesting. Solution. So you're in a private school I see now. Understood. The high schoolers where you are wear uniforms? Yeah I think we are from completely different places now. "It is not a concern of whether if it gets better or not, I should not have to get better. "It all comes down to stages in life. Yeah during elementary to middle school your freedom may feel limited and it's really strict but as you get older (high school+college) you gain more freedom, Regarding what you wear and the expectations from teachers and professors since they expect different from you as you are older and put you more in a higher standard. Not discrediting younger people who are middle schoolers because I know many such as yourself are very sharp but unfortunately this uniform thing is just so prevalent and hard to control. Sometimes you have to roll with the punches. At the same time, I see where you're coming from.

ca9c6b9f-2019-04-18T11:12:56Z-00005-000

while I do find some of your points valid, Here my rebuttals for some I disagree with: ==Style Students who are in a district with a strict uniform policy lose their ability to express their individuality through fashion. In some regards, School uniforms teach students that it is more important to think and act like a group instead of thinking and acting like an individual. Although there are many influences that can shape mob thinking patterns, This type of policy can be a foundational element of it if the uniform policies are not carefully introduced and monitored. Some accessories for girls are considered inappropriate. And as genders increase, Uniforms get complicated and it seems much easier to be able to get your our choice upon stuff. ==Why wear uniforms? What's the point? In our life, We will be faced with millions of choices, But how will we face THOSE, If we still have our clothes chosen for us. We need to learn our independence before learning our restrictions. There are 4/10 chances that groups of students will get in a risky situation in school hours. While no "what ifs" should be taken and student safety Is outmost of many concern, There are other ways, Some which may even be better. ==bullying "Bullying occurs whether students wear uniforms or not. The root cause of bullying should be addressed. Teens should be able to develop self-expression and their personal identity. . . . Today's school uniforms seem more a punitive measure meant to deny students their right to freedom of expression" -The Internet ==Solution As a 7th grader in a private school, The high schoolers who go there DO HAVE TO WEAR UNIFORMS. It is not a concern of whether if it gets better or not, I should not have to get better.

f4978a00-2019-04-18T18:48:17Z-00004-000

My opponent makes the claim that we need security cameras installed in school to catch illegal acts and that since there are security camera's in malls and movie theater's they should also be in schools. He goes on to claim they can prevent illegal activity, prevent bullying, and even school shootings. My rebuttal's 1. Security camera's are expensive to buy, install and maintain. The cost of a good security camera can cost up to hundred's of dollars and it also would cost another large sum to install and run them . [1] In a time when schools across the country are having budget cuts, good security cameras costing up to 1000 dollars each would be a huge financial burden on the school which would more than likely result in the lay-offs of employee's, academic classes being dropped, extracurricular activities such as band and athletics being eliminated, etc. Simply to buy security camera's. 2. Security camera's would be useless. My opponent also claims that security camera's could stop school shootings as well. In order for camera's to prevent a school shooting, the school's we all need to hire armed security guards to constantly monitor the camera's and act in such an event. School shootings are also highly unlikely as only a handful occur in the U. S. every year which normally result in either no casualties or mere injuries and many time are perpetrated by adults who simply walk onto campus, a situation where cameras will have no effect. [2] A better way to prevent school shootings would be to allow teachers to have permits to carry their weapons at home on campus. This would not cost any money at all as the teachers would simply bring weapons from home. This would turn a significant amount of teachers into persons with the ability to put down an armed intruder or student faster than a single guard watching the screens of dozens of live security camera's. Many schools in the U. S. are already following this method as well as countries such as Israel and Thailand [3] Most if not all illegal activity on school campuses, do not occur out in the open such as in the quad, in the gym, etc. They occur in the bathrooms, the locker rooms, etc. The sale or use of illegal drugs, weapons, etc occur in those private areas. In order to make security cameras somewhat worthwhile, we would need to install security cameras in those areas. The girl's locker room, the boy's bathroom stalls, etc would need cameras. It would be extremely inappropriate and a major violation of personal privacy if the students were forced to appear naked, half dressed, and using the restrooms to school personnel. Young females and males should not be forced to appear nude, half dressed, etc to school officials. It is a violation of personal privacy and is extremely demeaning and stressful to students, who will now know that their math or science teacher has seen how large their breasts are, or who will now know how small their penis is, or how fat they are, or how skinny they are, etc. For these reasons security cameras are extremely costly, and in order to avoid the violation of the personal and intimate privacy of students, cannot be placed in the areas where illegal activity can occur the most. Vote Con [1] . http://www.supercircuits.com... (Costs of various security cameras. Prices range from over $250 to $1000+ each. ) [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (List of school shootings) [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Schools with "armed classrooms" have already been implemented in the U. S. , Israel, and Thailand. )

7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00008-000

Although homework can be copied , that is only due to the fact that the homework we receive is too long. Homework is beneficial to understanding a subject and furthering your knowledge on the selected subject. Therefore Homework is beneficial to knowledge as long as it is a reasonable length to prevent anxiety.

7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00003-000

KIds lack the motivation to follow your Idea to space things out and if they push things further because it gives them a break. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Procrastination is something that all students are guilty of at some point. Without homework students would not have anything to push off and would be happier.

c50238c9-2019-04-18T17:47:31Z-00001-000

Yes, sure it can provide for those who do not get A+ as a back up, but generally is it still worth the time and money when you can get training and experience at the workforce. " We should also keep in mind that the grades students get in high school is only an initial stage and that things can be very different in College or University, as those who don"t do as well in High school can go on to do much better in college and the A+ students in High school can end up realising that their potential is limited once they are in college or University. So presuming that High School A+ students should have the opportunity to work before the students who are not up to that level, YET, is very unfair." even if it is an initial stage there are all stages anyway, taking college and uni out of the picture can still provide for those who didn't get A grades, it can be an open system. "Yet, is very unfair" If they are somewhat disadvantaged it's alright as there are disadvantages and advantages to certain people anyway like scholarships, uni fees, course prerequisites. " There is a fine line between education and qualification and a University degree is the proof of both. Colleges and Universities will not only deal with the subject you are training for but they will also educate you further on morals and ethics and build you up with discipline and knowledge which High school and jobs alone can"t do. And as for employers, why would they put their effort, time and possibly money to train and qualify employees to work for them, especially while the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive. Wouldn"t they rather have employees with University degrees that show that they are full on ready for work? Some employees maybe willing but most would probably not be so willing." Education and qualification can be gained by the individual and proof of both can be tested when applying for a job. You have no sources or proof that university does educate you further on morals and ethics maybe the workplace does an even better job of that. "discipline and knowledge which high school and jobs alone can't do" still no proof i don't see why paying for a few extra years in a government scheme is any better than the workforce. Many who have dropped out of university or never even attended ended up being successful and somewhat knowledgable and ethical so i'm sorry but being educated and having dignity does not rely on University it can be developed by the individual if he attends or not. Just with the letter 'A' 'a' to 'l' S. Daniel Abraham, billionaire founder of Slim-Fast. Joined the Army at the age of 18 and fought in Europe during World War II. Did not attend college. Roman Abramovich, richest man in Russia, billionaire. Dropped out of college. He studied at the Moscow State Auto Transport Institute before taking a leave of absence from academics to go into business. He later earned a correspondence degree from the Moscow State Law Academy. Abigail Adams, U.S. first lady. Home schooled. Ansel Adams, photographer. Dropped out of high school. Bryan Adams, singer, songwriter. High school dropout. Calpernia Adams, transsexual showgirl. Never attended college. As she noted, "My parents thought that college leads you away from God, so they hadn't saved any money." Sandy Adams, U.S. congressperson. Dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to join the Air Force. Later got her GED and attended the police academy before being hired as a deputy sheriff. William Adams, aka Will.i.am, singer, songwriter, music producer, founder of the Black Eyed Peas, actor, entrepreneur. He formed his first group in high school. Never attended college. Gautam Adani, commodities billionaire from India. Dropped out of college. Adele, aka Adele Laurie Blue Adkins, singer and songwriter. Intended to go to college but got signed to a recording deal just after her high school graduation. Sheldon Adelson, billionaire casino owner. Dropped out of City College of New York to become a court reporter. He made his first fortune doing trade shows. Trace Adkins, country music singer and songwriter, actor. Studied at Louisiana Tech University but never officially graduated. Went to work on an oil rig instead. Mortimer Adler, author, educator, editor. Left high school at the age of 15 to work. Later received his high school equivalency degree and attended Columbia University. Ferran Adria, chef. Has been called the world's greatest chef. Did not finish high school. Miguel Adrover, fashion designer. High school dropout. Ben Affleck, actor, screenwriter. Left the University of Vermont after one semester; then dropped out of Occidental College to pursue acting. Andre Agassi, tennis player, winner of 8 Grand Slam titles. Quit school in the ninth grade and turned tennis pro at the age of 16. His father would drive the kids to school but, instead, actually took them to local tennis courts to practice. Dianna Agron, singer, dancer, actress. "I didn't take the typical path and go to college after high school. Instead, I saved up money from teaching dance classes and moved to L.A." Christina Aguilera, singer, songwriter. Never finished high school. Danny Aiello, actor. Dropped out of high school at the age of 16 to join the army. Later received a high school equivalency degree. Troy Aikman, Superbowl-winning football quarterback, TV sports commentator. In 2009, he finally graduated from UCLA, 20 years after leaving college to play in the National Football League. Aikman had promised his mother, when he left school just two courses shy of a degree, that he would return and finish. In 2009, at the age of 42, he finally fulfilled that commitment, earning A's in his last two courses, thus earning a bachelor's degree in sociology. Malin Akerman, model, actress. Enrolled in York University (Toronto) but left after about a year to see what else was out there. She moved to Los Angeles to become an actress. Dennis Albaugh, billionaire founder of pesticide company Albaugh Inc. Earned a 2-year agriculture business degree from Des Moines Community College. Did not continue on to a 4-year degree. Edward Albee, playwright. Dropped out of Trinity College after three semesters. Jack Albertson, Oscar-winning actor. High school dropout. http://sharevdo.com... - and those who not only never dropped out but never attended, incredible While it can be useful to many my point is that it shouldn't be 'necessary' that's the point of the argument In reply to your last few points, it may be the government's interest to educate and build a strong nation but that's the whole trap you just said it. Trying to pay off a loan for a few years sounds like a farmer, farm animal situation. We are slaves into make a "stronger nation" i think we deserve more liberty and the government should be using taxes more wisely. "where there is an assurance that learning is taking place" you can't assure that, i see more people enjoying online ways of learning like khan academy rather than the classroom, and i already stated that the sense of 'community' can be formed online but that alone shouldn't require that much money "-Because an exam for a job only limits your knowledge to that one profession and does not show that you are educated, may show that you are qualified, but not educated. Whereas a degree shows a wider range of skills and knowledge." how so? you didn't justify, a degree doesn't show someone's overall educational status either it just limits the knowledge to the one degree like you stated. Yeah social democracy is the increase of liberty for the nation and looks like the best step to take in regards to 'indirect slavery' as I like to call it

b567d7fa-2019-04-18T12:55:36Z-00001-000

"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim." harrytrumanSunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate.http://www.scientificamerican.com...

9d5a13c2-2019-04-18T17:09:54Z-00004-000

MY TURN! C1: The Resolution is a Minor Concession by my Opponent Roy is advocating to that it ought to not increase. This must mean that my opponent concedes that there are benefits of the MW in the first place. If my opponent thought that the MW was more harmful than beneficial, he would have advocated for it's complete abolishment. Otherwise, there is at least some reason to keep minimum wage (MW). C2: The Role of the Government is Not a Factor Here I would like to point out that this debate revolves around the evaluation of a policy. The question is not what the government's role ought to be. The topic of this debate must assume that the government is already involved, and the question of this debate is whether it has been economically beneficial or not. Therefore, my opponents entire 4th point concerning welfare is completely irrelevant. Besides, MW and welfare are different. To justify keeping MW the same, he must in fact show the effects of this on the whole economy. When my opponent reverts to microeconomics to try and justify his position, this is null-and-void. Turn: Without raising MW, the costs to the state is substantial: we lose tax revenue, more people go on welfare programs, some look to the “shadow economy” and begin to commit crimes, etc... So by taking the position my opponent has maintained, he is actually making those dependant on the state worse off by opposing MW, instead of saving money by increasing wages. Besides, my opponent completely forgets that if MW increases, people will be encouraged to find a job through legal means. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] C3: MW Hasn't Been Abolished Due to it's Effectiveness Thought experiment: MW enters the US in about the 1930's under FDR's New Deal. Since then, the MW legislation has been increased in the US alone 22 times. Unless it was beneficial to the people, politicians, and businesses, then why has it not been abolished? In fact, why has it been furthered even surpassing federal levels in some states? Heck, why is it that in some parts of South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, a MW is simply customary? The answer is simple: MW legislation simply works. Well over 90% of the world has some form of a MW legislation, so there’s lots of data for us to analyze. [http://tinyurl.com...] C4: MW Improves the Gini Coefficient Pretty self-explanatory: when MW hikes happen, every single index from the Gini Coefficient to Atkinson indexes, or even standard deviation of logarithms, show great improvement for the US. Meaning when MW hikes happen, income mobility is dramatically improved, and ones ability to improve their financial situation from their parents is increased. (“the American Dream” folks?!)[http://tinyurl.com...] C5: Monopsonistic Competition Unfairly Favour Businesses Imperfect competition has resulted in a buyer being able to unfairly dictate it's terms to the seller (worker) because of the volume of sellers. When competition between sellers ensues, the marginal product of labour (MLP) drops. The seller is producing the same amount of goods, but at a reduced price. As a result when MW increases, employment and wages go up as well. When we ask how much MW should increase, we look to MLP for equilibrium. MW is a legislation that regulates a market failure, not some silly “free-lunch” handout my opponent dresses it up as. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re1: Labour Costs Are About 25-35% of Fast Food Costs If we were to have a controlled experiment between someone who does pay MW (Walmart) vs paying more (Costco) we find that Costco actually saves money due to less turnover rates in the long run. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re2: Increase Costs Actually Can Come From Revenue, in Fact My Opponent Himself Stated This in His First Paragraph (Price Increases) Senator Elizabeth Warren notes on raising MW, McDonalds would be able to raise their prices about 8 more cents per burger to off-set the increase in labour costs (assuming MW is up to $14.75/hour). Meaning that increase costs can be compensated with additional revenue, my opponent noted this himself. It doesn't make sense to claim that prices will increase, but somehow revenue is lost when prices compensate for those factors. Furthermore, this is NOT counting the fact that most people who make a yearly income of $5,000 or less (students) spend about 6.2% of their income at fast-food chains. This is also not including the fact that increasing MW, as economist Robert Reich notes, only effects industries such as fast food, hospitality chains, and retail. Far more people will actually have more money to spend, furthering productivity, and the amount of money McDonalds gets in return as a result is higher than what my opponent claims. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re3: My Opponent Assumes the Neoclassical Model of Supply and Demand When Claiming Half The Jobs Would Be Lost My opponent is assuming a basic supply and demand model in microeconomics. As OMGJustinBeiber points out: “To get that degree of precision would presupposing a kind of uniform rationality in regard to the consumer and producer, which obviously doesn't exist in the real world. Unfortunately, my opponent demands this exact precision – ["Raising minimum wage would costs half the jobs, jobs will be lost to technology"] -- to make his case. Short of believing this standard we must vote con.” For instance, my opponent notes a completely automated McDonalds in Tokyo, but as much as it makes complete rational sense for every single McDonalds to go this way (saves on labour costs substantially to the investor) they simply have not done it yet even after a MW hike in 2007! Rationally, this is the most illogical thinking I have ever seen if my opponents claim is correct! Meaning that some things demanded, or even supplied have absolutely no rational basis for them, and this assumption of actors always working for their own rational self-interests is nonsense. In fact, in his claim that jobs would be lost, he cites he following study: .Burkhauser, Couch et Wittenburg, “Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS”, Southern Economic Journal, 2000. Upon examining the study, it only used 3 points of data constituting a hasty conclusion. Turn: My opponent claims that if MW increases, McDonalds would have incentive to replace workers with technology, costing jobs. However, he actually made a de facto case for minimum wage, as technology is a benefit to the economy not a detriment! Furthermore, this article was made in 2003 as his citation notes. Lets not forget MW at the federal level was increased in 2007, yet this fear of a complete automated McDonalds has yet to appear in the US (to the best of my knowledge). This is an irrational position for my opponent to claim; if my opponent's claim was correct, McDonalds would have already automated everything in every store. [http://tinyurl.com...] studies show that jobs are increased or are unaffected when MW is increased. The studies done by Card and Kruger show this when comparing New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This was after New Jersey hiked their MW in 1992 by 18%. This was repeated using the data from a federal MW hike, and California hike and the findings stayed the same. When we drop the supply and demand model, and actually precisely look at the employment impacts of a MW hike, they either remain unchanging or increase. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re4: Role of the Government (See C2) Conclusion: My opponent displays kettle logic and agreed with me on some points: MW increases technological innovation, businesses would not lose money due to price increases. The monsopolistic society we live in would heavily benefit from a MW increase when we drop the “s/d” generalities, and observe precise impacts via Card and Kruger studies.I did not ask for special treatment! Thank You

2906e2-2019-04-18T12:44:06Z-00000-000

You never specified what age is deemed to be "young." I am going to assume you are talking about kids under the age of 10. Kids under the age of 10 are still growing and developing, and putting a child in the way of a risk of harming themselves is dangerous because they are so young and still developing. While it is good to be exposed to things at a young age, extreme contact sports for younger kids is dangerous to their well-being. Needless to say, children's decision making is still developing at a young age as well - which may result in more injuries and conflicts during such sports. It is also a proven fact that younger children are more prone to concussions than older and developed children. That is why, the article listed below explains in further detail, doctors recommend the age of 14 to be the age children start to play those kind of sports. Why risk a higher chance of getting a concussion instead of just waiting for it to be safe for the child? While comfortable risk-taking is a skill children need to know, contact sports which have a high chance of putting themselves at negative health risks is definitely not the best way to teach children the concept you expressed in your argument. Citations: http://www.mghclaycenter.org...

95d75407-2019-04-18T18:47:46Z-00002-000

Here we goBackgroundLet it be known, that Israel is a legitimate nation with the rights to the land they occupied in 1948. They have victoriously held that territory despite multiple attacks from neighbooring Arab nations such as the Yom Kippur and Six Day War. [1] Israel has been given it's territory, has defended itself in several large wars and is therefore a sovereign nation. Just like when the U. S. broke away from England, just like when Cuba broke away from the U. S, just like when East Europe broke away from Russia. Therefore Israel is a legitimate and sovereign nation and has the right to defend itself and nations that choose to leave it alone will not feel Israel's wrath. But Israel hasn't been left alone. Ever since the creation of Israel, Israel has been plagued with constant terrorist attacks. [2][3] Many of those responsible have been Palestinian terror groups including but not limited to: Black September Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Fatah Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Hamas So we have a legitimate, sovereign nation being constantly attacked by terrorist groups. These terrorist groups are fighting for Palestine, from Palestine and are funded by Palestine. [4]Argument: Israel has the right to defend herselfIsrael is, by all definition of the word, a sovereign nation. It has been able to hold it's territory for more than half a century and it is ridiculous to spend any more time fighting to prove otherwise. With that said, Palestinian terror groups have been conducting routine attacks on Israel by multiple different terror groups. For the past 40 years, Palestinian terror groups have been blowing up Israeli army vehicals, hijacking airplanes, exchanging gunbattles in populated areas killing Israeli soldiers, policemen, and civilians. These terror groups are funded by Palestinan tax dollars. Since Israel is a soviergn nation, and Palestine is funding terrorist groups to wage war against Israel, Israel has the right to wage war on Palestine. By waging war on Palestine Israel has taken Palestinian territory and annexed it. This is a common consequence of war and merely the outcome of a tragedy instigated by Palestine itself. Israel has proven to be a peaceful nation. After the 6 Day War and Yom Kippur War, Israel had given back the territories it rightfully captured such as the Sinai Peninsula [5] and has offered to give back the Golan Heights to Syria [6]. Israel has even returned the Gaza Strip back to Palestine but took it back with force when during the Second Intifada, rockets being launched from Palestinian terrorists were found to have been launched from the Strip. [7]Therefore I argue that if Palestine ceased their aggression immediately, cut off all funding to the terrorist groups, and sued for peace with Israel, Palestine would not be ravaged by a war they have no possibility of effectively fighting. Vote CONSources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(History of conflicts fought by Israel)[2] . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...(List of terrorist attacks on Israel)[3] . http://www.adl.org...(List of terrorist attacks by Hamas)[4] . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...(Palestine imposes a "Palestine liberation Tax Fund" on its citizens. A 5% on every citizen's income. Proceedes are given to terrorist groups) [5] . http://www.britannica.com...(After capturing the Sinai Peninsula Israel gave it back after Egypt proved it wanted peace)[6] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(Israel offers to give Golan Heights to Syria)[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Israel has returned Gaza Strip to Palestine, they took it back when terror rockets were being launched from the area. )

6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00000-000

Marijuana is used almost like alcohol, but has been used in a more abusive way. Marijuana was used as a medicine until we abused it and perverted it into a gateway drug. just because liquor is legal doesn't mean we should use and abuse it extensively, like we have with Marijuana. and that's why Marijuana should remain illegal. Furthermore i would like to thank lightningbolt50 for the debate opportunity, and you for reading. vote for whoever you think did the best. Thank you

6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00005-000

It is very tame drug, and has little effects. While it's not without it's problems, it's less harmful than cigarettes and even over-the-counter pills. There has been no recorded deaths in history by over-consumption of marijuana. It is not only less harmful than cigarettes and many other drugs, it's much less addictive. Unlike tabacco, it can be eaten and doesn't have to be smoked, thus reducing it's harm even more. Meanwhile, a number of studies in recent years have demonstrated the medical potential of pot. Purified forms of cannabis can be effective at attacking some forms of agressive cancer [1]. Marijuana use has also been tied to better blood sugar control[2], and may help slow the spread of HIV[3]. Legalization of the plant for medical purposes may even lead to lower suicide rates [4].Decriminalizing it would also drasticly reduce the prison population, about 800,000 people are in jail for marijuana, and 70% of that is just for posession of it. [5][1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]http://www.reuters.com...[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5]http://hashexpress.wordpress.com...;

6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00006-000

Whilst many use marijuana as a recreational drug or as a pain killer it depends on how you use it and why especially if its a young adult such as a 18 year old who's front cortex hasn't even developed yet

d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00001-000

"I really do not think teenagers should be allowed to vote. And being honest, I think the voting age should be raised even higher."If the voting age was to be based on brain development, twenty five would be the only age to make sense. However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." While a fifth of U.S. teens (21%) say they are "more liberal" than their parents and 7% say "more conservative," 7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's."Over a forth having their own opinions is actually quite good. Regardless, that isn't quite true. "in the NLSY sample, which looks at child-mother relationships, 51.2 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party identification. The results for the HLS sample, which considered child-mother and child-father relationships, were similar. In that sample, 53.5 percent of children misperceived or rejected their mothers’ political party affiliation, and 54.2 percent did so for their fathers’ identification." -http://www.asanet.org..."They would vote through their children or the children would just believe hat their parents said and vote based on that."Children have free will, and given the right to vote would make their own decisions. If that means shutting out everyone but a few opinions, what difference does that make? Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference."Also, women and black people being excluded from voting is not the same as excluding teenagers. Women and black people were still adults. " Who's to say that age is any less arbitrary to deny people on the gender or race? Both were once seen as less intelligent.I thank you for the argument, and conclude.

d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00007-000

You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.

d490026a-2019-04-18T12:01:22Z-00007-000

First, I ask my opponent to refrain from wild ad hominem. CO2 has gone up. Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- . https://climate.nasa.gov...;The spike coincides with the popularization of cars, especially in the US, as the wartime production economy steamrolled on into an age of peace and excess. These factors meant we as humans began putting out CO2 like nobody'sThe Earth has gotten hotterNASA once again has a relevant graph: . https://climate.nasa.gov...These two are correlatedHere, our good friend NOAA helps out, with their interactive climate dashboard(you'll have to scroll down past a few articles): . https://www.climate.gov...;And no, the NOAA isn't fake: . https://www.snopes.com...;Your ad hominems also reminded me of this: . https://imgur.com...;In

ecb3571b-2019-04-18T16:51:54Z-00002-000

Abortion should be legal because:1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc.2. It is not the job of the goverment to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment.

275a54f4-2019-04-18T11:30:43Z-00001-000

With all due respect, it really doesn't matter whether the guns they bought are bought within legal limit or not. The problem is not the purchasing of guns, the problem isn't the selling of guns, the problem is the mental stability of the clients. Gun control has been known to actually cause more problems with crime and shootings, if you want an example take a look at Mexico and other countries around the world with a high murder rate. Gun Control has clearly been proven to not work, however, I am in favor of controling the purchasing and flow of guns based on the stabilitity of the buyer. Allow me to elaborate on the sentance I stated in the last paragraph above. I believe you and I can both agree that School Shootings are a result of mentally unstable people who get their hands on guns. As a result, I believe that guns should only be sold to people above the age of twenty-one (which is the age I believe). Also, if you have a mentally unstable child in your house you should not be permitted to hold a gun unless you have an approved safe and so forth. This works because it doesn't break the second ammendment of the constitution and it keeps those who are pro-gun happy. "OK let me start with what the second amendment is, the right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia; IN A TIME OF WAR!" I must say that you are only partially correct with this statement. Albiet that yes, this is the purpose, it is only part of the purpose. The purpose of the second ammendment is to arm the people of the United States to protect themselves from a government tyranny, that is what the founding fathers formed it for. I, myself, with the growing use of "Big Government" which is supported by the left, I fear that a Government Tyranny may arrise within the next two centuries. I am in support for the second ammendment for this reason. It was made to allow us protection from Government Tyranny. Also, I'd like to thank you for accepting this debate, it's always enjoyable to discuss intellectual conversation. Back to you!

9507adce-2019-04-18T15:00:56Z-00000-000

Vote me. Extend Arguments

9b3d820f-2019-04-18T18:03:58Z-00007-000

Definitions Anthropogenic an"thro"po"gen"ic/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/ Adjective: (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) Originating in human activity. Global warming an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 3 days to post 4 rounds 8000 Characters No insulting Start argument in first round

641b1478-2019-04-18T13:36:06Z-00002-000

First, I thought this was a debate and not a "Here's the definitions and you're wrong". Secondly, medical and cosmetic research labs kill animals 80% of the time and there are many more promising methods.

f2685cc8-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00000-000

Extend arguments

f2685cc8-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00001-000

Extend arguments

6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00004-000

Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us. As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate. Refutations "As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens." Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... "More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote." Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above. "Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others." You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org... "In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum." Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... "Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago." As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents' opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3]. 2. Not everyone needs to vote. Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote. 3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do. Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round. I await my opponent's response. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00005-000

Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.

6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00000-000

Thank you for sticking all the way throughout this debate. In this final round, I will tell you why the Opposition should win this debate. Refutations "The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing!" The logic simple. Not everyone includes 16 year olds. This is the relevancy. Toddlers are simply also one of thos every people. We should not allow those who wish to vote to vote. Should ten year olds be allowed to vote? This point is relevant to your argument that we should allow anyone to vote, and clearly, we should not. I'm sure there are many children in the world who are at least 10 years old that wish to vote on American politics. But should they? No, because they are too immature and most don't understand what they're talking about. This applies to 16 year olds as well. "Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is." You basically answered your first question. Sure, parents are not completely informed, but they are more mature and responsible enough to make a self-decided vote, whereas 16 year olds cannot form their own opinions, are easily swayed by advertisements, and fancy commercials. A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility to drive carefully and safely. The RESPONSIBILITY and MATURENESS. Thought it may not directly affect voting, it does indirectly by showing how careful and how mature a person is to have even received that license. "If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said "to its logical extreme". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them!" Sarcasm is not welcome in a debate! And please stop insulting me and claiming that I am confused and telling me that I can't understand sarcasm. There is no logical evidence for this argument, aside from conduct. 16 year olds have not even made it half way into high school. 18 year olds are near the completion of high school. What's the likeliness that one year of high school teaches more than the three exact years? "If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me." My refutation is not completely useless. It seems as if you have skimmed my entire refutation. I proved that all the things you have listed are not mature decisions. They cannot join the military, they can only get very low pay jobs, sex and marriage is rarely a mature decision as a 16 year old, and dropping out of school means they are lazy and don't enjoy work which usually also means that they don't want a job. Anyone can receive military training. Young children can receive military training [1]. Does this mean they should vote? No, because they are immature! "If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving)." 16 - 18 is a more critical age advancement than 18 -21, simply put. Using your own arguments against you, 18 year olds can serve in the military and die for our country, have nearly finished or possibly finished high school, which is basic education, and they are considered ADULTS [2]. "Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote!" There is a complete lack of evidence on the Proposition side. 16 year olds can abuse their voting powers and vote without care. Or, a 16 year old could be easily swayed by an ad and cast the "wrong" vote, which I will explain later. "In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason..." 18 is the best minimum age to vote because 18 year olds are more mature and can serve for our country and are considered adults. Finally, considering the "wrong" vote. There, believe it or not, are "wrong" votes. The votes that are biased, the votes without care, the votes that were easily swayed by an ad or commercial... These are all wrong votes! And this is much more likely to occur from 16 - 17, than 18 - however long you still wish to have your opinion heard. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are too immature. This basically corresponds with the "wrong" vote. 16 year olds are too easily taken over by flashy commercials or have the same opinions their parents do, without truly understanding government and politics. 2. 16 year olds do not need to vote. Why can't they simply wait two more years? There will not be a major turnout in all elections and a very small difference might be made, but not large enough to completely alter the outcome of an election. 3. 18 is the best age to have people vote. These people are mature, trustworthy, responsible, can form own opinions, and are adults and completely have the right to vote. These are the three arguments that have continued past this debate, whereas my opponent has had all of his refuted. Who you should vote for: Conduct: CON Reason: The Proposition has called the Opposition's arguments, "means nothing." He has directly insulted the Opposition's own character using words such as, "confused," I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't understand sarcasm, essentially, and "continues to ignore." Also, my opponent has plagiarized from a source. Arguments: CON Reason: All CON arguments have been unrefuted. All PRO arguments have been refuted. Spelling/Grammar: Tie/CON Reason: Various grammatical errors on PRO side. Unsure of CON side's grammar, but my opinion is that the CON has had better spelling/grammar. Your decision. Sources: CON Reason: CON has more sources, all reliable. PRO possesses 1 source, which he commonly copied and pasted off of. For these reasons, please vote for the negation of this resolution! Thank you for a wonderful debate. Sources: 1. http://www.mysummercamps.com... 2. http://www.philforhumanity.com...

6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00001-000

I will now refute all my opponents points, and save my best points. Refutations: "Yes, this is about 16 year olds and 16 year olds are a section of everyone. This is completely relevant and was simply just an argument stating that 16 year olds do not need to vote. It seems you are confused this time. " The argument that you stated was that not everyone needed to vote. You then listed examples of toddlers voting on health. How is this relevant? Not everybody needs to vote, but shouldn't we allow those who wish to do it participate? Perhaps you misunderstood my refutation. Not everyone needing to vote has nothing to do with this debate, if someone wants to vote for their country, they should be able to do it! I'm sure if you were talking about an 18 year old, you wouldn't be saying the same thing! "A driver's license demonstrates the responsibility, safety, and caution a person has used throughout his driving test. This is a key area of maturity. The fact that they can be responsible means that they can also be responsible for their own actions as well as voting. It seems you ignored the fact of them being able to attend college and learn even more. " Why would attending college affect this debate? Of course, students can learn more about politics, but this is not necessary if they think they have a future in politics. Can you safely say, that your parents were COMPLETELY informed about politics before they voted? A driver's license has absolutely nothing to do with the maturity required to submit your opinion to a national election! How can someone not be mature enough, if they want to have their vote casted? There is no wrong vote! If they want to vote, they drive out to the voting station, and they are fully prepared to show what they think, how could they be considered immature? Obviously, there is some confusion in my opponent's mind about what real responsibility and maturity is. Saving my points: "Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. " Refutation of this point: As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Refutation of this: If you don't understand sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised. The argument clearly said "to its logical extreme". This was pointing out that the inability for uneducated people to vote was classist and was abandoned. You clearly do not understand what I was saying. 16 year olds could already have taken certain classes concerning government, and 18 year olds might not have taken them! "More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. " Refutation of my point: Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives. Refutation of this: If anything, you are helping my point. According to this legal system, 16 year olds can marry, have sex, drop out of high school, get a job, and join the military. If they are mature enough to do all these things, why can't they simply represent their ideas in important elections? Your refutation is completely useless. Lastly, you said that 16 year olds cannot fight in the army. I am aware of this. But, they receive military training, so it is obvious that they have the maturity to fight in the army. It takes a lot of maturity, to even decide to train. Thank you for assisting me. "As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. " Refutation of this point: Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Refutation of this: If you say that there is no major difference between 18-21 year olds, how can you say there is a difference between 16-18 year olds? There is a 2 year age difference compared to a 3 year age difference. 21 is when you are 3 years into college at the most, and you are now allowed to drink (which can lead to drunk driving). Another thing, is at 16 a boy or a girl have already studied politics enough to fully understand who they want to vote for. Once again as my opponent CONTINUES TO IGNORE, is that there is no wrong vote! You cannot say that someone who wants to vote for the law or official they like, is wrong! Now to refute my opponent's main points. In my opponents first contention, he stated that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote. Of course, the amount of 16 year olds that are not mature enough to vote, will most likely NOT vote! The 16 year olds that clearly arrive at the voting booth, and are enthusiastic about sharing their opinions will be the mature teenagers! You cannot say that 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote, because that is a complete generalization. This argument means nothing. In my opponent second contention, he said that not everyone needs to vote. Not everyone needs to vote, but that is also inferring that citizens over 18 do not need to vote! He also stated some rubbish about toddlers voting for health, I don't know what that has to do with 16 years olds, but his loss! In my opponent's 3rd and final contention, he stated that 18 is the best minimum age to vote. Yet, all the reasons he listed show absolutely no reason that there would be a maturity increase in Politics. Obviously, my opponent is confused about what is required to have real opinions. (all opinions are real) I'd like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate, and I'd like to quickly repeat my best point. No vote, is truly wrong. You cannot walk up to a person and say they cannot vote because they want a good candidate to win

a3d0cb21-2019-04-18T14:36:53Z-00004-000

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country."---FDROnly 2 out of 5 voters can name the 3 branches of Federal Government[1].49% of Americans think the President has the ability to suspend the Constitution[1].A majority of Americans believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, even after the 9/11 Commission found that there were not[1].Only 1/3 of Americans understood that the majority of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq. Another 1/3 thought the majority of the world was neutral, and another thought we were cheered on[1].6 months after the invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein participated in 9/11[9].According to a 2011 poll, more people knew Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol than knew John Roberts was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court[9].Since 2007, Americans have scored on average under 50% on bi-yearly political knowledge tests administered by Pew[2].When asked, Americans can correctly identify the Party of their representative only 53% of the time, despite the fact that 97% of Americans live in districts considered to be consistently favorable to one Party[3].Americans think we spend 25 times more than we actually do on foreign aid, and more than 2/3 underestimate the portion of the Federal Budget spent on Social Security and Medicare[4].I could spend a lot of time showing how uneducated the electorate is, but unless my opponent challenges this fact, I'm going to leave it at this.So, these are, as FDR put it, "the ultimate rulers of our democracy".We are so screwed.If Americans can only do marginally better than a coin toss in identifying the most basic information about their representative, how can we expect that representatives will be chosen based upon comparison of their views, voting records, and future plans, against a voter's educated, thoughtful stance on policy?How can we solve the looming crises like the Medicare funding collapse[5] if we don't even know how much we spend on it? If we don't care enough to do a little research, how can we expect to get political candidates who are serious about addressing such a tough issue?How can we justly decide whether or not to provide aid to nations where the adults die of AIDS and the children of starvation, when we falsely think we're already spending massive amounts on foreign aid?This is a central failure of our democracy. There are major issues that need to be dealt with, but because the electorate does not possess the will to push our representatives in the right direction, nothing happens, and it's business as usual politics. One needs to look no further than Congressional elections to see this in action. Both Congress' productivity and approval rates are absolutely abysmal[6][7], yet they see re-election rates well over 80%[8]. The electorate rewards them for doing nothing, simply because they lack the passion necessary to not only care enough to be informed, but also to choose representatives who share their passion and wish to make genuine attempts to solve serious issues.America today faces numerous challenges with no easy answers, and no shortage of politicians, who, unprodded, are unwilling to address them. We face Climate Change, the Debt Crisis, our future in overseas military actions, our stance on gun ownership, mental health, drug policies, an ailing education system, sexual education, and many, many more things which require knowledge, and the will to act.This is why we need to restrict voting rights to the politically literate. Do we want to avoid the collapse of Medicare? If so, we'd better get some politicians in office who are willing to address the issue, instead of use it as a campaigning platform.Do we want to end up like Greece? If not, we'd better pick some representatives who are ready and willing to solve theissue, not pass it on.The only way to do that is to get voters who are concerned enough about that issue to have done enough research to be able to elect representatives on the basis of the quality of their ideas in regards to solving the problem. In other words, quality voting is required.My opening round is short, but that's because this is plain, common sense. If we want good government, we need good voting. That will require voters who have invested time in learning about the issues, in order to choose representatives who will invest time in solving the issues.Sources:[1] http://www.usnews.com...[2] http://www.americanthinker.com...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://volokh.com...[5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...[6] http://www.gallup.com...[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[8] http://www.opensecrets.org...[9] http://readersupportednews.org...

f4ca2630-2019-04-18T11:15:38Z-00001-000

" If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away. " It doesn't necessarily mean that students CAN'T wear their own attire, In some cases they are allowed to wear other attires if they have no uniform or there is an event, The student themselves decides whether or not they should wear uniform. If they don't then the teacher will just remind the student to wear uniform, They can in fact, Wear their own attire, It's just that wearing school uniforms are better. Now let me restate everything that you didn't answer. If there was no school uniform. . . . . . It would push students to wear trendy clothes or which are inappropriate. . . . School spirit would decrease (because of emblem and equality) . . . It will increase the likelihood of rape or sexual harassment (because of inappropriate clothing) . . . Rich families will make their children (or the children themselves decides) to wear expensive clothing, Which the financially challenged families can't, Causing competition. "Many middle school students will agree with a writer who said" Tell me who that writer was. "Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear" Tell me your specifics why students shouldn't wear school uniform. Not only self-expression. "Therefore, Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear so students would rather wear everyday attire. " There are other ways students can express themselves, Not only through their own attire. "Too tight or too loose" Then just re-adjust the uniform or measure it before the school even starts. "If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away" Though you are only talking about your own country, How about others? And anyways, Even if they do "take the freedom to express themselves", That's understatement, To restate that would be "schools take the freedom to express the APPEARANCE of a student", Which would mean that it doesn't take the WHOLE FREEDOM to EXPRESS THEMSELVES as there are MANY OTHER WAYS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, Not just through their attire. So what is your point here? It seems that your point here only sticks to the argument that students can't express themselves, Though actually they still can express themselves, But not on their appearance, There are other more ways I can say myself a student can express themselves. You are saying that the students has an incapacity to express themselves as a whole just because they can't wear what they want? That's ridiculous! The school isn't taking the right of students to express themselves as a whole just because they can't wear what they want, They are only taking the opportunity that everyone in the school will be equal to each other through appearance. Again, They can express themselves in many other ways, Not just through a simplistic uniform. My case still stands.

ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00000-000

I will use this speech to further strengthen my constructive, and refute my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that it does not make sense to legal PEDs with the intention of leveling the playing field. However, I have provided evidence that says that a majority of athletes in some sports use PEDs. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to eradicate PEDs. This has been seen recently in sports such as baseball. Despite continuous effort by Major League Baseball to take PEDs away from the game, PED use is still widely present. This shows that it would simply be less cumbersome to allow everyone to use PEDs than to attempt to remove them entirely. My opponent also observes that PEDs increase chemical achievement instead of human achievement. However, I have shown that professional athletes still are incredibly skilled, regardless of whether or not they use PEDs. Furthermore, I have shown that people do in fact celebrate "chemical" achievement. An example of this would be the MLB Home Run races in the 1990's, when a majority of the contenders used PEDs. During this point in MLB history, there were more fans and spectators than ever before, which shows celebration of what my opponent dubs "chemical achievement." So, it is clear that PEDs do not eliminate human achievement, and any chemical achievement that they provide is still celebrated. My opponent refutes my argument regarding the inherent dangers of sports by comparing it to teachers and welders who use cocaine. This argument cannot be weighed in this debate for two reasons. First, Professional Athletes are paid much more than welders or teachers. Second, PEDs are much less dangerous than using cocaine. Professional Athletes are being paid much more than teachers or welders, and they are also submitting themselves to the inherent danger of their sports. And I would observe that this argument was mainly put into my constructive speech to show that the dangers of PEDs do not come close to outweighing the inherent dangers of sports. Because of this, the contention regarding the dangers of PEDs cannot be weighed highly. My opponent finally argues that chemical achievement will never be celebrated, as all that people celebrate is human achievement. I do accept that people embrace human achievement in sports, as I even said that in my constructive speech. However, I have also shown that chemical achievement can be celebrated, which increases the appeal to watch professional sports. So, it is clear that PEDs do in fact level the playing field, make sports more appealing, and should in fact be legalized in professional sports. So, I affirm the resolution that Performance Enhancing Drugs should be permitted in professional sports, and I urge a pro ballot.

ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00002-000

I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, "A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2)." This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...

ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00005-000

Performance Enhancing Drugs are defined as substances used to improve performance in a variety of fields. We're talking about steroids, lean mass builders, stimulants, nootropics, painkillers, sedatives, blood boosters, etc- not caffeine and green beans.

d6baaaf1-2019-04-18T12:08:55Z-00001-000

the definition of a sport is: "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc."

8d83a935-2019-04-18T16:29:59Z-00002-000

For those in the audience who are not aware, the SHSAT or "Specialized High School Admissions Test" is an academic examination taken by middle-schoolers in New York City to get into the prestigious High Schools known as "Specialized High Schools". . http://en.wikipedia.org... As I am aware, there have been numerous schools added to this list over the years, but the benefit is the same: Those who score well on the test gain entry into these elite High Schools and in doing so, an incredible advantage in gaining entry into top Ivy league universities. College Admissions officials nationwide are quite familiar with these schools as they represent the best and brightest that New York has to offer. Numerous Nobel Prize winners trace their schooling back to the top three schools on this list; Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent is of the opinion that because there seem to be some discrepancies in terms of scoring and acceptance, that the test is flawed to the point that it must be discontinued. However, I find that to be a poor argument. Removing the test would create a severe backlash as these schools would continue to exist. What would my opponent have the schools do? Accept students based on proximity, which is what the usual case is in New York City? The reputation of these schools would be tarnished forever due to the influx of unqualified students zoned based on location. The schools have always existed to help the best and the brightest achieve their full potential, and they have done an amazing job at it year after year. It is not the responsibility of these schools to take under-achievers and make them into passable students. There are plenty of other schools for that. I will spend the rest of the debate arguing why the SHSATs should go on, why they MUST go on, even if they do have to be tweaked a little, but I have not seen an argument from my opponent yet as to why the SHSATs should no longer proceed.

cefe2520-2019-04-18T14:46:21Z-00002-000

I see what you are saying, but 1) Rebuttals Okay but gaining weight ( which is what you said) is not want the people who drink it want, which is what I said. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not but other than that their is nothing else to rebut.

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

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

fcdba824-2019-04-18T13:26:07Z-00001-000

water is yummy and good for you

e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00001-000

First of all let me say how happy I am to have an opponent with a sense of humor. I had hoped to have a somewhat relaxed and fun debate, and he has not let me down. Also I apologize for my tardiness. Work has been brutal lately. Onward then: I am glad to hear my opponent concedes the ignorance of people, as this fact is paramount to my case. There has been insufficient scientific research as of yet to conclusively prove that mogwai do not exist. To dismiss their plight, and the plight of all towns everywhere that could so easily be decimated by uncontrolled mogwai propagation is absolute neglect. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc. ]. My opponent here fails to offer any reason why this matters. Life requires DHMO, this does not necessarily mean that this is a good thing. I offer, there would be no significant harm to the universe were all life on Earth to cease immediately, and there would in fact, be the potential for some benefit to this particular portion of the Universe. I offer into consideration- humans cause harm to the environment, other living species, and the atmosphere. Recalling that my opponant conceded the ignorance of people, it seems unlikely that we will ever provide the benifit from our lives we can provide by our extinction. Remove all life now and it MAY be possible for some life to begin again at a later time that would be less destructive. My opponent claims that we must keep this chemical Dehydrogen Monoxide for no other reason that to keep the obviously detrimental life upon this earth, without offering any reasoning as to why this would be a good thing. I propose it would in fact be a neutral thing at worst and a bad thing at best. Again, my opponent has simply stated, "irrelevant" and "We cannot ban rain, it is impossible. " This is irrelevant. As I have shown, there would be long term benefits to just such a ban, as such the resolution is upheld. "Banning the use of water is not ever done. " This does not mean it should not be. In fact high ranking officials have made the attempt, only to be shot down by special interest groups that stood to gain significant advantages with the distribution of DHMO. In fact in 1998 "A member of the Australian Parliament announced a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide internationally. " . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Obviously he was blocked from success. "Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned. " NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial: DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches) DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture. "Consider this hypothetical topic: "People should be brutally slain" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because "People" refers to people in general. " It could as easily mean "some people" as it could "all people" the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires. "Here's another one. "I'm better than my opponent. " PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING; he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. " Irrelevant. The use of the word better quantifies the statement, making it inherently different from the actual topic of THIS debate. My opponent has made the claim that the banning of water is bad, without showing why this is so. He claims that it necessary for life without showing how that is beneficial. He has outright tossed out my defense of mogwai, showing a callous disregard for the lives of countless poor souls seeking only to enjoy a rare holiday free from strife and gremlins, and he shows no concern at all, ignoring my call to protect, all witches who may find significant pain upon contact with DHMO. I have shown: 1. mogwai should never be introduced to DHMO 2. Witches, particularly of the western variety practicing a form of of their craft known as wicked, would certainly benefit from just such a ban 3. There are some long term environmental benefits to this ban.

e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00004-000

Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence. Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it. Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide: Humans are made up mostly of it. The earth's surface is made up mostly of it. It can be used as a coolant. All plant and animal life requires it to live. It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages. It is what we clean ourselves with. It's fun and good exercise to swim in it. Yes, water can do many harmful things. Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic. Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life. Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough. Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon. The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban. The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors. So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that. Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet. Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems). And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water. Your move.

129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00003-000

Sorry I thought "vegan" was short form of "vegetarian". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. "Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with." Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. "Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans." Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.

129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00006-000

Although I am far from a vegetarian I do see the health benefits in that lifestyle. However one can not just go and eat just anything vegetarian and think that is good for them. http://www.livestrong.com... "According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are also at lower risk for becoming obese, due to diets with significantly lower levels of saturated fat and cholesterol. It is important, however, to plan your vegetarian diet so that you are consuming sufficient levels of all necessary nutrients." Too much meats in our diets are the cause of many health problems. However if a vegetarian lives off junk food like soda and potato chips of course he is not going to be healthy. Most vegetarians, especially those who actually studied nutrition, are much healthier than the average omnivore. As for the proteins found in meats, foods such as beans and nuts have protein as well. I am not denying the benefits of meat protein but I am saying it can easily be substituted in a vegetarian diet. That way they get the benefits of the proteins without the health risks associated with meats. America has a high meat diet and a high obesity rate. All medical evidence in the field of nutrition would suggest that that is not a coincidence.

129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00007-000

Thank you for accepting. First of all I would like to say that vegetarianism is a terrible idea because we are omnivores, so we need both animals and plants in our diet. But my first main argument is about the medical condition risks. First of all you do not get enough vitamin B12 which means you don't have the proper vitamin to create your DNA, function the brain and make red blood cells. You also could get the symptoms: sore tongue, constipation or diarrhea, rapid breathing and heartbeat, easy bruising and bleeding, upset stomach, tiredness and weakness. You can get vitamin B12 by eating a lot of dairy foods but even that would cause diarrhea, and even the much rarer problems could be some kinds of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Believe it or not, one study showed 92% of vegetarians have vitamin B12 deficiency. Other nutrition things needed that vegans don't get a lot are: 1. Animal protein; animal protein is important for muscle mass, bone structure and more importantly, amino acids. 2. Creatine; low creatine is harmful for muscle and brain function. 3. Omega-3 fatty acid; helps depression, prevents asthma, helps blood fat, prevents Alzheimer's disease, helps baby development and much more. Sources http://www.webmd.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.newlr.com... http://authoritynutrition.com... I await your argument.

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

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

286347c6-2019-04-18T12:24:41Z-00004-000

Prostitution should not be legal because it is very immoral and it is not safe for the well being of the woman in the first place. Now a days we know all the of the effects that having sex can do to ones body. They can send different diseases and should not be legalized.

b552379f-2019-04-18T17:03:23Z-00000-000

I will intentionally forfeit this round because I barely have 8 mins left to post my arguments.I will just post my arguments in round 4.In the name of fairness, I am calling my opponent to please forfeit with acknowledgement the round 4.Thank you for consideration.

24bd7078-2019-04-18T18:50:14Z-00003-000

My opponent brings up some good points as solutions for children who are clearly a drain on the public education system. Below I will quote my opponent's proposed solution and refute it. I also assume my opponent is talking about American public school as when one looks at his profile it says he is from the U.S. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck on his first debate. My opponent's resolution of which he is defending. "The bases of the argument is that students that are questionable about their learning and their attitude be sent off to the Military." I accept my opponent's definition of questionable students. My opponent says that if a student does not take school seriously then putting them in the military and consequently giving them a stake in this nation's national security will fix the problem. //"Such students are a liability to other students who wish to further themselves but are being held back. By sending them off to the Military they can be taught discipline and skills according to the job they get in service."// My opponent believes that giving a problem child a stake in the U.S. military, which is publicly funded just like the public school system, will somehow take the burden off of the American taxpayer. Taxpayers already pay over 655 billion dollars every year on the military budget not including veteran benefits or the "war on terror"[1] My opponent has yet to show why taking troubled children out of the educational system and giving them a stake in national security will solve anything. [1]http://www.warresisters.org...

924ff298-2019-04-18T15:27:17Z-00007-000

Rebuttals should occur in Round 3 . The Case from Morality- It is wrong to ban prostitution as it is not inherently an immoral behaviour and this is because it doesn't include the initiation of force . A sexual act between one person and another in which one person agrees to pay for the service is a voluntarily relationship , a contract . It is possible for one of the people included in the act to end up with an STD this is however the result of the person being irresponsible and choosing to have sex and taking that risk. It is my opinion that we should stop making excuses for irresponsible behaviour as this is counter-productive . Unless my opponent also advocates for people not being aloud to eat foods that contain high-fat , high-sugar and high-salt content he cannot make the argument that we should not legalise prostitution because of the spread of STD's . Not mentioning the fact that if there was a legal market for prostitution it would be safer than the current one. The Case from safety- As it has been shown through the alcohol prohibition in 1920s and early 1930s when you criminalize certain parts of culture crime increases . 'In a study of more than thirty major U. S cities during the Prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24 percent. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9 percent, homicides by 12.7 percent, assaults and battery rose by 13 percent, drug addiction by 44.6 percent, and police department costs rose by 11.4 percent. This was largely the result of "black-market violence" and the diversion of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the Prohibition movement's hope that outlawing alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to Prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations. ' -Charles Hanson Towne (1923). The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States. New York: Macmillan. p. 159–62. Prostitution has been a part of human culture for a long time and we haven't seen it end . The fact that it is illegal in so many nations means that there has to be a black market and this black market cannot be regulated which leads to poor management and violence . The Economist says (. http://www.economist.com...) ' Governments should seize the moment to rethink their policies. Prohibition, whether partial or total, has been a predictable dud. It has singularly failed to stamp out the sex trade. Although prostitution is illegal everywhere in America except Nevada, old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). And prohibition has ugly results. Violence against prostitutes goes unpunished because victims who live on society’s margins are unlikely to seek justice, or to get it. The problem of sex tourism plagues countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where the legal part of the industry is both tightly circumscribed and highly visible. ' If prostitution was legal we could regulate the market in ways to make prostitution safer such as require prostitutes every couple of years to test for STD's. Marjan Wijers in her article in the book Global Sex Workers wrote "Criminalizing the sex industry creates ideal conditions for rampant exploitation and abuse of sex workers. .. [I]t is believed that trafficking in women, coercion and exploitation can only be stopped if the existence of prostitution is recognized and the legal and social rights of prostitutes are guaranteed. " To this I can only add that I agree 100% . The case from Economics- We already addressed Morality and Safety . Now let's address legalising prostitution from an economic stand point . If prostitution was made legal the market itself could be taxed and this would produce large amounts of money for the government . 'Another benefit of legalizing prostitution resides in the ability to generate tax revenue. Once the applicant has successfully obtained licensing she may work at a brothel, enjoying legal income taxable at the appropriate rate. The average annual income of an employee at one Nevada brothel working only one week per month is at least $100,000 (Ayres). Based on this figure, each legally licensed sex worker would contribute more than $20,000 in federal income taxes per year. ' -(. http://people.emich.edu...) There is massive potential for a new booming industry and not just in the USA , this new field of legal work could provide jobs and money not only for those seeking employment but it would also help the state through tax revenue . Let me reference back to the quote from the Economist that I included in my case from safety - 'old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). '. These are large sums of money which can improve the conditions of many countries economically. In addition as this is my last argument I would like to point out that legalising prostitution would also lower rape rates . Legalising prostitution could make it easier to access and make it more available . 'If prostitution were legalized in the United States it is rational toassume that prices would resemble those in the Netherlands, this would result in an I of80 and a decrease in the rape rate of 10 per 100,000. The population of the United Statesif roughly 275 million so this should result is a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapesper year. ' -(. http://www.independent.org...) I hope that I have made a well thought-out argument for legalising prostitution and I wish good luck to Con.

a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00003-000

I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school.