Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 12

610216c4-2019-04-18T17:07:45Z-00001-000

To me uniform is not a waste of time. It is a form of identity mostly used by educational institutions. Sometimes workplaces also stick to uniforms. As far as schools are concerned a uniform serves many purposes. It creates a sense of identity. All kids do not come from similar backgrounds and allowing them to come dressed in their normal clothes may cause a division and lead to harassment and teasing. With uniforms such crisis would not occur. If school kids were to be taken out then being in uniform would make identification easier. A sense of belonging also occurs in a uniform. I shall limit myself to this much and wait for your opinion and clarification of what exactly you wanted to debate on before any further response.

45c09d2f-2019-04-18T19:52:48Z-00001-000

First off, if you want to talk statistics, you should provide some. Using the number 22 in your speech does not justify statistics. Furthermore, I'm not using 'abstractions' I am using common sense! Next, I answered your argumentation on the poor stating that biodiesel would exacerbate the problem as would ethanol. Furthermore, solar power is not the only form of alternative energy. And, you concede so much stuff and don't even attempt to answer Adam Smith. Smith's idea were the foundation for modern day economy so if you are going to even bring up how your method solves best for the economy, you at the least have to answer back the Adam Smith argument stating that the government should be limited when it comes to the economy. And, you don't answer my argumentation about how the government has too close of ties to organizations such as OPEC, at the point where you concede that, then you have overlooked an essential point of analysis that will cause further hindrances to your arguments because I have automatically answered back all of your arguments. Supply and demand will eventually check back the '$12' a gallon argument because there will be a push by the common folk for a new form of energy because I know a lot of people who will quit purchasing gas if it surpasses $4 a gallon. In reality, you look at it in a dismal sort of perspective where the poor and middle class are either incompetent or unable to do anything when that is just not the case. Thanks, Matt

45c09d2f-2019-04-18T19:52:48Z-00003-000

So, thank you! I will begin my argumentation by referencing one of the most political and economic minds of all times. Adam Smith. His ideas were the basis for the world economy and the United States' government. He claimed that a government has 3 duties to its people, and no more. 1) Public Institutions 2) Domestic Security 3) Protection from foreign invasion Alternative energy does not fall under any of these three duties that the government holds and should therefore the government shoud not act. Next, you advocate that the market cannot take care of the 'problem' (I will talk about this 'problem' later on. ) itself. You only contention for this is that biodiesel is an effective energy source. There is a major problem with this though. BIODIESEL REQUIRES MORE CHEMICAL ENERGY TO MAKE THAN IT CAN PRODUCE MAKING IT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ITS CAUSE. But you go on further to note that biodiesel is too expensive and is the only reason why it isn't being used. I answer this back with two responses. Biodiesel is cheaper than regular diesel fuel (which is the only thing that biodiesel replaces) meaning that money isn't the problem so that automatically deteriorates your argumentation. But furthermore, biodiesel is ineffective, it clogs up cars, and it takes away from agriculture raising the price of food which would effect the poor and the economy even more. Next with your 'conventioanl wisdom' aruments, they have no basis and there is no analysis on how this 'wisdom' even exists. It does not exist because the rich would not invest money in a risky area. It is the middle class that would make this technological advancement simply for the emperical support that comes along with it. It was the middle class that lead the textile, industrial, and technological advancements of the past, therefore it should be left to these people to do it again. And, you advocate that the government would be the best operative to change the current status quo of oil consumption to alternative fuels, ummmmm. .. .. the government has strong ties to OPEC and other oil agencies that make them the worst possible advocacy group. No matter how much they call for a change in the current energy 'crisis' they never will make this change. This is reason enough to deny the use of the USFG. Next, LEAVE IT UP TO THE MARKET! Smith also created the concept of the 'invisible hand' that drives prices of goods down and creates the highest amount of techonological innovations. A free market also weeds out the bad ideas and further iterates the good ones because people look to what works and buy it. Basic consumer/producer relationship. This is the only way that we would ever be able to find the best source of energy. Finally, you make the assumption that we should divest away from oil and to alternative energy sources. I ask you why? Oil provides more CO2 for plants increasing crop production around the world, it has shown no signs of 'global warming'. We have not seen the effects of burning oil and we will not see them in the future. Thank you! Matt

daa1c0-2019-04-18T14:20:22Z-00003-000

"Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills" assumes that cannabis is better for treating medical conditions than man made pills. While medical Cannabis is proven to help with much pain management and as been proven very useful in some fields it leaves others void of any treatment in which man made pills prove their use. If a woman needs birth control should she take man made pills instead of using cannabis to protect against unwanted pregnancy? No this is foolish If someone has a bacterial infection that requires antibiotics they should use pills instead of cannabis? Of course not. If someone has schizophrenia they should take man made pills instead of just using cannabis? There is good reason why we don't. To say medical marijuana is the be all and end all for medicine is a blanket statement that shows a lack of understanding of empiricism.

af9aea94-2019-04-18T19:14:52Z-00002-000

I hope that we can both learn from this. I also would like to thank the audience for reading this. You claim that teachers should be forced into taking random drug test in order to stay employed. You believe that the testing will stop teachers from using drugs, and will cost very little. I fail to concur. First, drug testing is an invasion of privacy. Take article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. It states ‘No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. ' For this reason random drug testing was banned in Washington. In the case of Treasury Employees v. Von Raabthe, the high court ruled that requiring employees to produce urine samples constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (which protects citizens against "unreasonable" searches and seizures). The Court also ruled that positive test results could not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions without the employee's consent. Secondly, drug test are not as cheap as you claim them to be. They can range from $30 a test to $100. There are also about 4 million teachers in the United States. Lets say that every teacher was tested once at $30 per test, that would be 120 million dollars. Also teachers would have to take the test repeatedly, costing tax payers millions. Lastly, testing would not be as effective as you claim it would. There are many ways to beat a drug test, putting salt in urine, eat poppy seed bagels, drinking lots of water, ect… This is just a brief argument; I want to confirm that you will not forfeit your next argument before I go on. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://www.ehow.com... (2. ) . http://www.leg.wa.gov... (3). . http://en.wikipedia.org...

a90ab43d-2019-04-18T17:30:35Z-00001-000

Argument extended

ba09f109-2019-04-18T19:56:08Z-00003-000

Firstly, vouchers or systems very similar to them have been tried before. Especially in England an have been rejected for various reasons. Your round one argument shows an amazing faith in the voucher systems ability to almost magically transform our society. Until I know exactly what kind of voucher system you proposing it will be hard for me to make a complete argument. But I will lay down some initial arguments. If you mean privatization of the entire school system, then you must realize that this will be a permanent decision that will result in an initial huge loss to the tax payers. Privatization schemes almost always result in government properties being sold at both a horrific loss and far beyond market value. Kansas City MO has for decades tried to bring light rail back, but have been stymied by the fact that they sold the right of ways to family for a pittance who has now been holding out for vast fortune to buy them back. Many school properties are in prime locations and when sold would be impossible to buy back. So a broad based privatization would be virtually irreversible. A comparison with the federal support of higher education would give some idea of what we could expect from the voucher system. University education was initially supported by heavily subsidized state universities and the Pell Grants. This was augmented by student loans. Since student loans where available to students of relatively high incomes it allowed parents to pay what they already could and then the student to contribute with enormous loans. The result was mind numbing inflation in the cost of higher education. Then states steadily reduced their subsides to state schools further feeding the inflationary forces. At the same time the majority of students who were not at poverty level have influenced states to move from need based assistance to merit based assistance which has further increased inflation and transfered monies from the poorest students to the richest students. The result has been that students in the united states leave university with huge debts which put them at almost an impossible disadvantage in the global employment market place. Further it is harder than ever for poor students to receive a college education and the prospect of huge debts is a huge disincentive to attend college especially for African Americans whose income potential is raised comparatively little by graduating from college. Once you separate the poor children from the middle class children into different schools as almost surely would happen with any voucher system there will be an incredible urge for the middle class voters to view the vouchers as a government handout which they don't need and will therefor vote against. Even if the vouchers are not eliminated one could be assured that they would never keep pace with inflation and eventually would shrink significantly in value. If an equal amount was given to every parent a rich parent who already has his or her children in private school would be able to add the entire amount of the voucher to the amount they are already paying. Which would of course result in substantial inflation. The poor parents would be able to add nothing to the voucher whose value would have already been diminished by the inflation caused by giving the vouchers to well off students. The inevitable result would be steep increase in the disparity of education received almost immediately this disparity would only increase as the voucher became viewed as welfare and was either cut or allowed to diminish through inflation. If the vouchers where mean tested it would only increase the perception that they were welfare and hasten their demise. The University system differs from the public school system in two important regards. Few private colleges are strictly religious and many students live in colleges far away. Americans are used to their school students living at home. However even a relatively large community often can only support one or two high schools. Many private high schools teach religious education and demand that their students participate in religious worship. How would you feel if your work moved you to a new community school and the only high school was Catholic and your child had to pray Hail Mary everyday? Or if the only school in driving distance was Muslim and your child was forced to were a veil and pray to Mecca five times a day? While these would be extreme, though very possible problems, the reality would be that religious schools in small communities would face huge competition from other the religious schools of other faiths which would doubtlessly result in an increase in sectarian strife. Further some students, those with significant learning disorders and those with severe disciplinary problems are likely to be either segregated in the few remaining public schools or segregated in private schools that will come to resemble hellish prisons. The main benefit that the severely disabled students receive from public school is contact with normal children. This benefit would almost surly disapear under a voucher system. You portray public school teachers as being trapped by unions that they don't desire. The reality is that there are plenty of private positions available. The majority of these potions pay less and few have similar benefits to public school. I know many teachers who are only are in public education to provide health insurance for their families because their husbands job don't provide health insurance. New jobs such as created by new private schools almost never come with family health benefits. These teachers will not be taking these jobs. Further teachers are the most pro-union segment of our economy. They make teamsters look like great big cuddly teddy bears. You can be assured that they will unionize a significant portion the private schools or at least force them into lengthy legal battles. Finally you hope that privatization will create an educational marketplace. However there is a significant body of evidence that this is not the case. Many private schools in the south have lower educational outcomes than their public school counterparts but parents pay to send their children to them because they are segregated. The selection of schools will be determined by many things. The quality of education is likely to be last amongst them. Firstly because privatized schools will be unlikely to submit to standardized testing which could erode their student base. Therefor it will be almost impossible for parents to determine which schools are better. Secondly parents are likely to be more affected by factors such as whether the school provides school buses, which sect the school promotes, whether the school keeps the children for the entire work day, and the racial composition of the school. Further in many communities there simply will not be any competition at all for high schools. Market forces can lead to dramatic improvement in systems that allow true unfettered market forces to work. But systems that are dependent on large government subsides are not a true markets and efforts at privatization tend to have disastrous consequences. You only have to look at (privatized but subsidized) Amtrak or the British rail system completely privatized to see what happens. Prices explode through the roof, and service plummets. But in transport there are other competing means of transport that are heavily regulated ans subsidized, namely the airlines. With primary schools, there is no other system to which children can turn if the school system collapses. The public school system is bad. But it could be much much worse and there is ample evidence that this outcome is quite probable if vouchers are added to the equation.

cac6bf82-2019-04-18T17:37:42Z-00001-000

Immigration does help http://teacher.scholastic.com... Illegal immigrants contribute to our economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers. They account for 5 percent of the total U.S. labor force, and at least a quarter of the workers in industries like construction, agriculture, groundskeeping, meat processing, and textile production. Undocumented immigration is a symptom of an immigration system that is broken. Lawmakers should revamp our immigration system so that it works with our economy, not against it. Even if what you say is right we could simply grant immigrants citizenship for (just an example) 100 hours of community service each year for 10 years so they would all be contributing to society.

c0f6874f-2019-04-18T18:34:40Z-00005-000

These are the premises for the "Con" claim: 1: It must be noted that the effectiveness of condom use is very exaggerated. Improper implementation, something which school-age teenagers are more vulnerable to than the average male adult (due to intoxication or lack of experience), causes condoms to be extremely ineffective. One must remember that, with typical condom use, 18% of women become pregnant. [1] Hence, the availability of condoms often gives teenagers a false sense of security when engaging in intercourse, while encouraging such activity to take place. 2: Presenting condoms to students in a publicly funded environment will offend students of a wide range of faiths and their respective families, including those of the Catholic faith, many of those of the (Orthodox and Conservative) Judaic faith, and many of those of the Protestant faith. [2] By giving students access to condom and encouraging their use, public schools are interfering with the fundamental religious beliefs of students and their families. 3: By teaching students about both abstinence and use of contraception, school programs are sending mixed messages to students. If the school wants them to not have sex, why would it give them condoms that they could use as contraception during intercourse? Hence, the distribution of condoms contradicts a school's attempts to promote abstinence. Moreover, the distribution of condoms leads to increased sexual activity among students; an increased level of sexual activity among students may lead to situations in which they may be physically hurt or exploited, due to their lack of mental maturity and physical vulnerability. Condom distribution in schools leads to a false sense of sexual security among students who lack experience with condom use, imposes ideas that contradict the religious beliefs of many students and their families, and sends a contradictory message to students that ultimately encourages them to engage in more sexual activity. Therefore, "Con" is the far superior position. Thank you, and I look forward to the opposition's refutations. [1] . http://www.youngwomenshealth.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

6b369348-2019-04-18T15:15:08Z-00004-000

I accept. First of all the majority of 12 year old ar any age child prostitute is there involuntarily. Non voluntary prostitution would still be illegal. Also legal prostitution would only be legal for 18 and older. No minors. if it were legal it could be better regulated so as not to spread as much disease and make it safer so the women involved arent managed by dangerous pimps. We could add a law that persay says that it is illegal to be involved in prostitution if you have an STD. then we could just go after those people. Prostitution could be one off the check boxes when you go for a physical snd if the doctor sees it they can make you get regular tests. Also nobody said that you should sell your body for sex. Its a terrible idea actually. but it shouldnt be illegal or criminalized. Many women in prostitution actually have people to support and prostitution is a last option. I would want to help them find a better option but if thats what they go with im notnfoing to fine them or arrest them and put their family in an even worse position. Probably the most imprtant reason it should be legalized is that it lets customers get rid of sexual urges. These actually has been shown to correlate with lower rates of sexual assault and rape. I would rather have legal prositution in my town then women getting raped. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Also, it is your body and you do what you want with it. Nobody can tell you any different.

bdfbbe63-2019-04-18T16:41:16Z-00000-000

I agree with my opponent on the reluctance issues for student and teacher interaction. I believe this happens because no matter how much encouragement a teacher gives, students know its only so long until its time to change classes and if they're not really interested in learning more, someone will put up their hand and speak but they know that if a teachers passion is to teach, they're waiting for the chance to move, to be more involved. People tend to talk amongst themselves about whatever they want when placed in a class room setting. Give them a new project to work on that is more or less hands on with help from someone else and they'll naturally be interested in it more than writing down notes on a piece of paper. Even my teachers knew this, but the problem was, no direct funding was available to cover everyone comfortably. But to optimize the quality of ones education, students need the hands on experience to be able to show teachers how willing they are to remain not only a part of their class, but a part of their choice to remain in it and as much a willing participant as possible to make the teacher student relationship as comfortable as possible. Students should be given the right to be able to choose who they want as a teacher given the options available, see how they work and should be able to transfer to someone who'd be able to help them more through out the year if they need it. Teachers should have low class sizes so they can focus entirely on the teaching of willing students who selected them preferbly over someone else, instead of being chosen who you're going to be in whose class with. A common problem is that teachers feel if they are people whose saying if you get to choose too early on, you'll come by more of a shock when you can't choose what boss you'll work for later, however I'm saying that's really the reason why nobody likes to choose how they learn something because they weren't asked. I know a lot of people whose requested a school transfer because a class they really want to take is being offered and if they want it bad enough, they will and should be given the choice to do so. this is already starting to happen. the biggest step people need to realize is that nobody has really explained to them all of what homework teaches people. they hate doing it, but they have no reason to not do it and so many people don't do it because they forget its not a necessity. For that reason alone, it should be banned or not required to pass a course, but the experience and interest shown in practical experience should compensate the need to have homework accept in projects where there's no other way, such as science or math. And, if people want to know more about them, the internet is our best friend. Either way, something has to be done about the necessity of how people view the school system and higher priorities need to be set clearly on what problems happen while at school, and how to make jobs less stressful by focusing on the quality of a service instead of how much you can make off selling more things to repeat the same process in competitive and other markets abroad.

30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00001-000

First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, "who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that "The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top." The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, "Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better." All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.

ed875b8d-2019-04-18T16:09:51Z-00006-000

I think the Death Penalty should not be used** I accept. Good Luck!

b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00000-000

Hi, Jack! nice to see ya! As you said, almost all of schools or academies use corporate punishment and many students don't really like that. But I think that's how it work, and corporate punishment is good for making students be quite, making students to follow teacher...

b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00001-000

Teachers in academies and schools use corporal punishments to change student's behaviour, but as soon as children get punished that way, the child will get mad and depressed. The child will start thinking that he is a bad person and a useless person. If they get punished like that too much they will become violent, and also they will become aggressive to their friends. Instead or punishing the teachers and parents should emphasis good behavior and applause them when they do something good, so they will feel better when they are prasied and will try better when their doing something positive. For example when a student is late for class the teacher should tell him or her to come a bit earlier next time. When teachers tell students to do something they will resist and maybe even ignore what teacher said if the teacher hits them instead of saying it in a good way. Some teachers hit them again if they don't listen. Then the student will try to quit the academy and if their parents are hitting them they might even decide to leave home.

47ca9427-2019-04-18T18:57:55Z-00003-000

Thank you. Back to the issue at hand. I never said the issue was domestic. I personally live in Spain, so I would be at a disadvantage debating solely the United States. The figure I gave was, though, from the United States. 1.4% of abortions in the USA in 2003 were late-term abortions. You weren't, therefore, correct on that. The figures I gave on teenage pregnancy rates was also of the USA. So, even if our perspectives vary, it didn't influence the debate that much. May I see this alleged paper of yours? I agree that teenage pregnancy rates saw a small increase in 2006, 2007 and 2008, but if my opponent were up-to-date, he would know that they declined in 2009 and 2010. However, I find it shocking that my opponent were to claim that the rates jumped by over 20 per 1000 in two years. I would like to see this paper. Our definitions of unusual seem to differ. I will therefore not hold the 99.9% statement against you. For Round 4, could you provide a definition of what comprises an unusual circumstance as I have in earlier Rounds? Thank you. I agree that a fetus cannot make decisions for itself, but the mother should do what is in her reach to consider the fetus' sentiments. A discussion with the father may help this. There needs to be tighter regulation on abortion. No, the woman's body argument is not logical. I once again stress this. Women are being given a choice when they deny to use contraception and have unprotected sex with their partners. Contraception is cheap and available in any pharmacy and, in some cases, even in supermarkets. As far as education goes, Sex Education is a subject in public schools in the USA, if I am not mistaken. So, they know well the risks of unprotected sex. Why do it, then? Why not take the "after-morning" pill then? The vast majority of women have a choice when they have sex. Only a very small percentage are raped. Again, if they feel that they cannot truly accommodate a baby, they can cite socioeconomic factors and be granted a review on the subject. They would get fair judgement. There is no question of whether back-alley abortions are a huge issue or not. I am saying that if the argument for keeping abortion legal is that people would do it illegally anyway, then why not go ahead and legalise murder and felony? The basis is more or less the same. If proper enforcement is put in place, then there would be no question of back-alley clinics. How can this be used as a basis for keeping abortion legal? On women's rights. Pro-choicers argue that illegalising abortion is a violation of women's rights. Pro-lifers argue that it is a violation of human rights. Therefore, one must be chosen and the other declined. One would have to be chosen over the other. Women's rights and human rights do not necesarily go hand-in-hand. If they did, we wouldn't need all the Acts calling for sexual equality after the declaration of 1947. Women are claimants of rights, as are children and human beings as a whole. Women's rights deal exclusively with women. There you automatically take out 50% of the human race. How, then, do they go hand-in-hand? I am not denying a woman her rights (see above). Before I wrap up my argument for Round 3, I'd like to return to my opponent's attack on me and my sources. By citing Wikipedia I am also citing numerous other, reliable, as my opponent calls them, sources. What I got was information and I posted it for reference for both my audience and my opponent. The blog was used solely and exclusively for the graphs. One belongs to the Guttmarcher Institute and the other was made with data from the National Campaign website. Also, please avert from personal attacks. I will not participate in such discussions anymore. Let the audience make the decision of what makes a reliable and citable source and what doesn't. Thank you. I will not participate in criticism of my opponent's sources as that would go against my principles. Thank you. SOURCES: All mentioned previously and; . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...

b1852066-2019-04-18T18:45:04Z-00004-000

I am arguing that abortion should be illegal in all instances except for one, which is only if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

395632a5-2019-04-18T17:33:21Z-00000-000

This is the first really serious debate with a serious opponent I have had, and it was very fun to boot - I think my opponent's idea of offering S&G to who had the best CX is a good idea, considering the grammar was very even. I would like any potential voters to grant the S&G points to who had the best CX, per the mutual agreement of both sides. With formalities and mutual agreement out of the way, I will proceed into thethe final portion of the debate. I will not respond to my opponent's response to my CX, as that would violate mutually-agreed upon standards. Please do not regard my lack of response to them as ceding the argument - rather, judge it according to whose argument was better. I disagree on me ceding round 3 points - I believe CX is only to be used to correct factual inaccuracies or to clarify an earlier position on an argument. The rules of this debate clearly state that rebuttal of round 3 arguments - of which each of those points my opponent notes belongs to. I will respond to each of them here, as I am allowed to do under the terms of the debate. My opponent's text shall be in bold font, while mine shall be in unbolded font. Contention 5: The Electoral College decreases the quality of candidatesSince candidates are now competing against anyone, not just the other party, there are fewer differences between the views of candidates. Therefore, candidates work harder to outshine each other. With many choices, competition is increased. This increased competition along with harder-working candidates leads to more productive candidates and a more productive society. I agree that the quality of candidates is important, but I disagree that the electoral college is the root of the problem. One of the many reasons our political system has issues is the lack of participation in primaries. To give an example - my state, the great state of North Carolina, only 35% of registered voters participated in the 2012 primary as opposed to the 68% who voted in the general election. Thes numbers rank only two percentage points higher in 2008, when there was actually a competitive Democratic primary and a landslide vitcoty. [1] With such low turnout, a minority of voters can swing an election. If more people voted in primaries, the will of the people would be better represented. Contention 6: The Electoral College sends negative views of the U. S. overseasAmerica is a symbol of freedom and representation. Foreigners look to America as a free country where everyone's ideas are represented. Essentially, America is a symbol of paradise for some, but for others, it is lies. Our "representation" is nothing because of the corruption. The Electoral College is part of the reason that America receives negative stereotypes overseas. I would ask my opponent to prove this factually, but he cannot respond because he has had a closing argument so to do so would be unfair. Rather, I would ask how countries would view something that has gotten virtually every election 'right' in terms of popular vote would be the root of anti-Americanism. There are many other issues people have with us, but a lack of freedom isn't normally one of them. Contention 7: The Electoral College puts too much stress on campaigningThe Electoral College system in place now forces candidates to spend large portions of their terms campaigning for the next one. Lengthy campaign cycles are, unfortunately, a fact of American politics. I believe this is due more to term length than anything - for example, this issue is much worse in the House of Representatives, where there are only two-year terms. To give an example, Mia Love, a Republican who barely lost to Democrat Jim Matheson in the 2012 race for Utah's 4th congressional district, has already pledged to run again in 2014. [2] To put it even more simply, there are several states where the governor only has a two-year term. The President has it pretty good compared to them. With that out of the way, I will note the few issues my opponent did not respond directly to. These are mostly minor, and my opponent may have opposed the broader theme, but take it as you will:*America is fundamentally a nation of states. *The Electoral College can be de facto transitioned to a popular vote system and back, through means like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. *Elections in America are not nessecarily decided by majority vote (ie. 50% + 1 vote), but by plurality (ie. the candidate with the most votes wins). *The 'power states' of California, New York, Texas, and Florida are awarded a proportional amount of electoral votes when compared to population size. *The popular vote in the 1876 presidential election was swung due to rampant voter supression from the Democratic side. Now, to my closing statement:Ladies and gentlemen of DDO, this debate presented an important issue - the future of the Electoral College, the system by which the President of the United States is elected. My opponent took the affirmative side, arguing the Electoral College should be abolished. I took the contradictory side, arguing the Electoral College. My opponent took the burden of proof, meaning he has to prove that the Electoral College needs to be abolished. While he presented some compelling points, such as the possibility of a result contradictory to the popular vote, I believe my arguments have, at the very least, proven the case is not clear-cut. My argument rested on severald key points: that America is fundamentally a nation of states and the Electoral College acknowledges this, that it requires candidates to campaign nationwide and moderate their stances, that third parties can and do impact elections, and that it can be adapted to the will of the states (and the people of them). As the debate went on, I introduced more points - that the swing states represent the views of the average American far more effectively than urban voters in New York or ranchers in Texas, but also that those same voters are given an appropriate amount of power. I also noted that most elections in the US do not go by majority rule, but by plurality rule - in other words, less than a majority of voters can decide elections. With that in mind, I urge all voters to cast their vote with BoP in mind. My opponent has a steep burden of proof - one he willingly gave himself. Each side made good arguments, but if Pro failed to prove his case, the debate should go towards Con. Thank you all for you time. References:1. . http://www.ncsbe.gov...2. . http://www.standard.net...

cef3e002-2019-04-18T16:55:12Z-00000-000

I argue that 17 year olds are still too young to vote [1] A) They are not old enough to make good decisions B) They are not old enough to join the military and therefor too young to vote C) They are still too immature to vote since they are still into porn and video games D) They are not ready for such responsibility E) 17 year olds don't understand politics yet F) 17 year olds are still not adults and therefore, should not vote Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

cef3e002-2019-04-18T16:55:12Z-00001-000

17 year olds should be able to vote because it helps but notice teens need something to do before becoming an adult nobody wants to vote unlike teens . this is my first debate so have mercy please

828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00002-000

In response to your point about entertainers, athletes and TV actors having lots of time off... This is true. However, I think my point about the length of teacher holidays being relative to pay still stands, particularly when teaching is compared to jobs that (similarly) require post-graduate training of an academic nature, such as doctors/lawyers, which tend to have smaller holidays. That entertainers/athletes/actors (at least, those near the top of their game) are paid considerably more than teachers in addition to having long holidays is not a useful comparison, since these types of highly-paid jobs represent such a small percentage of the workforce. You wouldn't argue that a teacher should receive pay comparable to that of, say, a world-class footballer, so I feel it is redundant to make that kind of link. (Of course, you could probably persuade many that world-class footballers are overpaid, but that's a different argument.) In response to your point that the pay climb is relatively poor, even with experience and degrees... I disagree. Teachers have many opportunities to move onto a higher pay scale based on their experience and qualifications. Nowadays, in the UK, "excellent teacher" status can be acquired by collecting evidence of high quality teaching, which moves the teacher onto a more generous pay scale. In addition, in secondary education, roles such as head of department, head of year, and examinations officer can be sought out which add points to pay.

209fe4d1-2019-04-18T14:51:47Z-00000-000

If we Privatise the NHS, greedy people will want money. No money is earned operating the NHS unless austerity is literally quadrupled, and well, that's way too bigger burden. By having the NHS state-owned then no private company needs to be persuaded to loose money, and no one would be. The NHS would be committed, instead of having the option, to providing a top quality health service. There will be teething problems and... well... um... in a health service, you just can't let that happen.

209fe4d1-2019-04-18T14:51:47Z-00001-000

First of all I haven't helped you at all. I have not pointed out that privatisation of the NHS will lead to greed; I have pointed out it will ensure the continuity of the vital health care services our country needs as it can not carry on the way it is with the population living longer, getting fatter and needing more complex treatments.

ad53c4eb-2019-04-18T15:29:26Z-00001-000

He Claims " There's absolutely no reason why it should cost anything to enforce already existing laws to their full extent" Well that's just purely false. Unless it's raining painkillers, animal nourishment and proper animal shelter. I don't see any way how it's possible to improve the health standards of animals while still maintaining cost? A common theme throughout most of my opponents refutations is my inability to argue his points, but two can play at that game. My opponent time after time has failed to respond or even hint at my stronger arguments such as researching using human tissue and cells. Which ARE more efficient and accurate, I have thrown facts in his face time after time and he always disregards them. Instead he picks on my sources and comes up with the most irrelevant points such as He claims: "But I can assure my opponent that all of my information has been cross checked and approved." This is just your assertion. It doesn't help that I was questioning you in the first place, then you just say "Trust me guys, I got this." The fact that half of my 3rd argument is based completely on the fact that there is new technology and for him to just ignore it proves that either 1) he just simply did not read half my argument, or 2) he's deliberately not answering them because there is nothing to argue, and If I were in his shoes I would be doing the same thing. Because what this debate comes down to is rather simple. There is better technology that can be purchased and developed RIGHT NOW. Not in 10 years, RIGHT NOW. Animal experimentation was a great method to learn and better our medecine, but we must replace previous technology with better ones, that's not questionable, it's human evolution, just because animal experimentation has helped us in the past, that doesn't mean we should just keep using them, if we didn't have the technology to replace animal experimentation, then this wouldn't be a debate, animal experimentation would be the way to go. The circumstances are not such, and we are able to use better technology. This new technology isn't controversial in the least and has a higher accuracy rate which will lead to higher rate of success in a human body. My opponent also tries to pull a fast one, saying: it just turns the debate into "Does animal testing give us things that are worth the cost". No, my dear friend. This debate should be "Are there other methods of experimentation that can replace animal testing??" and the answer will always be yes because... By saying that other methods will not work as well as animal testing without even talking about and discussing the pros and cons of other types of methods. My opponent must be living under a rock if he thinks that there is NO other viable way to replace animal experimentation , I've read an article this morning that suggests 3D models of animals or human cells can potentially replace animal testing, his inability to think outside the box will cost him. And his refutation to my argument about using other methods is weak and ignorant, the same kind of ignorance that caused the dark ages, a period of time where no attempts were made for science, mathematics, agriculture. Because "what we have is good enough" and we don't have to strive for better. The fact is if we don't strive for better and simply settled on what we have, we'll never improve, we'll never go forward. And since my opponent cannot prove that there aren't better methods out there to animal testing, I can only assume that I have won this debate Animal testing has contributed to some life-saving cures and treatments, animal experimentation had a great run, but it's time we can do without, it's time we can do better. The question isn't whether or not we should try and find better ways to replace animal experimentation, the question is simply are you ready to use newer and more effective ways to research medecine and cosmetics. In the past we did not have a choice if we didn't experiment on animals there were no other ways to do it. But if we continue to research on animals, with newer and more effective technology available then this would be unacceptable. And unless you can genuinely tell yourself that mankind has not improved over the past however many years we were alive and strived, that we had to use the same method of experimentation our ancestors used this decision shouldn't be hard for anyone to judge.

4931da27-2019-04-18T18:57:00Z-00000-000

First of all, it's privilege not preivledge, you spelled it wrong. My opponent is obviously stuck on the idea of core classes, which are not bad, but let's be honest, if the students get to choose their own classes, do you honestly think that they will choose to take the core classes, or do you think that they would much rather take the easy way out, and just do all easy, simple electives that require less of their time? It really is a no-brainier, people will choose what is the easiest before they choose the hard things, every time. The only reason somebody would choose the harder things over the easier things, is if they knew that they would be rewarded with some kind of a money reward, or something if they choose to take the harder ones over the easier ones. However since there may be a few students who like their harder, more strenuous core classes that require more time, homework, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Lets make a hypothetical situation. Let's say that you have a school with 2,000 students in it, and you are the principle, and you have hired on 35 teachers. That leaves you with a decent student-teacher ratio of about 57 to 58 students per teacher. That's not that bad of a ratio. Let's say that each one of your teachers earns about $23,000 per year. That's not really that good of a salary, compared to the average national annual income. If your school was a public school, that means that the school would be using $805,000 every year, just to pay the teachers!! That doesn't include the costs for utilities, janitors, security, cooks, etc.. Now lets say that half-way through the year, you decide that you are going to let the students choose their own classes, after you get this approved by the Department of Education. All of the students, except for a small group of about 500 of them decide that they are going to take everything but Algebra. Now your student to teacher ratio has more than doubled, while your student to teacher ratio for algebra has decreased dramatically. What do you do?? Do you try and hire more teachers to accommodate for the unbalanced ratios?? This would end up costing the government at least another $400,000 dollars, just so the students could be happy, and choose their own classes. To me it sounds pretty ridiculous for the students to be able to choose their own classes, considering the fact that, ultimately, it would make our taxes go up, in order to try to manage the new costs of all the extra teachers that would have to be hired on, just to make the ratio of students to teacher balanced.

d00daaa1-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00000-000

A. Contention 1+: Family My opponent contends that some people don't have time to write their "living will," and wouldn't bother with the paperwork. However, if people are willing to go through the extremely formal legal process of marriage, then most certainly they'd be willing to write out who they'd want to visit them. It's just a simple matter of writing some names on a piece of paper and sending it to the hospital. B. Contention 2+: Change from Status Quo My opponent claims that if all people could get married, then nobody is being denied the right to marry. However, what's really the point of reserving rights to the married? Why should somebody have to get married to receive these rights? What if a person's too ugly to get anybody to marry him? Everybody has the opportunity to be rich, but that doesn't justify the law favoring the rich over the poor in issues where it should be neutral. Contention 3+: Counterproductiveness My opponent says that gays are exploited. However, under my proposal, gays would not be exploited, and neither would the non-married. My opponent contradicts himself, saying that polygamy should be legalized while saying that marriage promotes polygamy. "No, I said that non-religious people would not have a way to get married. " They can be married in their heads. Why should they need government to tell them if they're married? D. Contention 1-: Discrimination My opponent claims that because the EPC is repeatedly violated, it becomes okay. Discrimination does not justify discrimination. "[A]s long as all adults are allowed to marry, everyone has equal opportunity to take advantage of the benefits that come with it. " Nope. The handsome have advantage over the ugly. The rich have advantage over the poor. The kind have an advantage over the rude. E. Conclusion: I would like to thank my opponent for his commendations. He calls my argument indirect. However, if there is no reason for marriage in general to be legal, then gay marriage would most definitely not be legal. In conclusion, there would be less government, more liberty, and less discrimination if marriage were not legal.

8fdec080-2019-04-18T19:38:05Z-00001-000

Ok I first will apologize that from here on out this debate most likely will get messy. That being said, lets move on. Ill go Neg/Aff Look to the Value Debate. What my opponent doesnt understand when I say that under a Representative Democracy the one vote per one person rule doesnt apply is that the difference between a Direct Democracy and a Representative one is that a Direct Democracy is merely the "will" of the majority. Citizens vote on all issues and elections and whoever maintains a majority wins. Under a Representative Democracy all eligible citizens vote for Representatives and officials to represent them in making political and government decisions. The easiest example is the U.S. House of Representatives. The Reps. are elected by groups of citizens in designated districts to decide for them policy decisions. What that means is that My opponents analysis under my value is hereby invalid. Criterion- To answer the officials are people argument. I would say thats true, but Officials are subjected to higher public scrutiny and are expected to have higher qualifications than ordinary people to make important policy decisions. This is a major distinction between the two forms of Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy, the officials who are elected under the one vote per person principle are more qualified than the voters who elected them. Thats why I say his argument about society collapsing doesnt exist, because under a Representative Democracy the actual decisions are being placed into the hands of a few more qualified and knowledgable people than the hands of the largely uninformed general public. Next, I would say my argument ISNT conditional. Since I am still taking about a form of Democracy, which by the way anyone who took the time to look at wikipedia couldve known about, my argument is still resolutional. Also, I am distiniguishing that these felons committed acts against the state and that under a Representative Democracy the officials have the right to prevent or ban them from voting. Contention One- First let me turn my opponents's Conditionallity argument. He talks about elite theory. This is as my opponent puts it "a never heard of unimportant small example." But even if you dont accept that, I would argue that this theory is logically flawed. Regardless of how much influence a person has in a corporation or policy planning network an individual would be very hard pressed to move up in the public ranks without having voter approval. Take this primary season between Clinton and Obama. Clinton, who had the support of the party establishment and think tanks early on, was beaten by Obama, someone who didnt have that support but who had earned the respect of the voters. Furthermore, my opponent fails to cite a source that actually proves that the US is an Oligarchy. The United States is regarded by most scholars as being a Republic, or a Representative Democracy. Furthermore, even if you were to disregard all these arguments and exclude examples from the U.S. then you would have to disregard my opponents second contention. He states " In the United States, most of the inmates are black. This means that in society, blacks lose more rights than white. This is unfair and bias and is a violation of blacks autonomy. This would mean that his offense coming from his second contention would be disregarded. Opponents Contention 1: Disregard my opponents' turn. If a false conviction is not discovered then it is a problem of the legal system in question. A punishment must exist to punish those that HAVE commited a crime. Also, this problem is non-unique to felon losing voting rights. Any person can be falsely convicted for any crime including felonies and Misdeamors. However, the state must have established punishments for the crimes that have been actually commited. Under my opponents world, these punishments would not exist because a small minority of cases have resulted in false convictions. I argue that this is horrible policy making, and on principle wrong. My turn also is extended since only the negative world can enact these punishments to deter further felonies while including reparations for those that were falsely convicted. Opponents Contention 3: His argument on Capital Punishment is conditional. It has little relevance because the majority of felonies do not result in the death penalty. Furthermore, He doesnt directly answer the argument that by commiting a felony, an individual puts his rights and fate in the hands of the state. By violating the established contract between himself and the state, the state has the right to enact any and ALL punishments it deems appropriate to punish the individual and prevent him from commiting further crimes. Since the argument itself is unresponded to you can extend my response. This actually turns his case since it shows that the state has that right to enact any and all punishments deemed Neccesary. Lets look at his Bush vs. Gore argument. First off let me point out that I am a solid Democrat and that I live in Florida. Bush didnt win because felons couldnt vote. He won because when the first results were being called for Gore, Bush called his brother Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida and asked him to help. Soon after, as a recount of the vote was called, Ballots started disappearing and hundreds were found on Interstate 95. I personally saw about 50 on I-75 on the Arvida Parkway (now Royal Palm Blvd.) exit. I ask that you disregard my opponent argument because he cant make a claim about the Florida vote in 2000 when he wasnt ACTUALLY there. I, on the other hand, have lived in Broward County, Florida since 1999. After reviewing the actual facts, I urge you to vote in Negation on Resolved: In a democratic society, felon ought to retain the right to vote.

adb11e8-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00001-000

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, politician, television personality, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Immigration: "As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now." "We want people to come into our country but they have to come in legally." He will send 50,000 immigrants out, "There going to have to go out, they can come back but they have to go out." "For many years, Mexico's leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American countries)," Trump said. In a rambling, defiant speech delivered in this border state that has been the epicenter of the nation's divisive battle over immigration reform, Trump declared: "These are people that shouldn't be in our country. They flow in like water." Trump said if he's elected president he will "greatly strengthen our border, making it impenetrable, putting a stop to illegal immigration once and for all. I will bring jobs back to the United States." In Monday's statement, Trump doubled down on his commitment to "strong borders" that would keep illegal immigrants from "pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants," he said. "The root cause of all the welfare payments to illegal aliens is the so-called 'anchor baby' phenomenon," he explains. "We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out, they will come back, some will come back, the best, through a process ... it may not be a very quick process, but I think that's very fair and very fine," said Trump. "I've talked to the greatest legal people, spoken to the greatest security people. There's absolutely no way of saying where these people come from. They may be from Syria, they may be ISIS, they may be ISIS related," Trump said. Defending his plan to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, Trump warned that we will "become so politically correct as a country that we can't even walk. We can't think properly. We can't do anything." "The border is a disaster, Bill. People are pouring in, and I mean illegal people, illegal immigrants -- 300 and some odd thousand are in your state jails right now, according to Homeland Security." "We cannot allow illegal immigrants to pour into our country," he continued. Abortion: "As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life," Trump asserted on the debate stage at the University of Houston. Trump also wrote: "Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best." "I'm pro-life, but with the caveats. It's: Life of the mother (very important), incest and rape," Trump said. "Look, Planned Parenthood has to stop with the abortions," he told host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press." Trump, explaining why he was inspired to change his position on abortion, spoke of watching an unnamed friend decide against ending a pregnancy: "It was going to be aborted and that child today is a total superstar. It is a great, great child." "I am against abortion... and that is a tremendous amount of the work they do," he said in regards to whether or not he is against defunding Planned Parenthood. Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd, Trump said, "Planned Parenthood does a lot, a really good job in a lot of different areas, but not on abortion." "I hate the concept of abortion," Trump said in the full clip. In an op-ed published on the Washington Examiner's website on Jan. 23, Trump wrote that his views on abortion were changed by a "personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me." Again in 1999, Trump stated to the Associated Press, "I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors." "I'm not supporting Planned Parenthood," Trump quipped back. Sixteen years later during the Fox News debate on Aug. 6, he said, "I am pro-life .... I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I've very much evolved. I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life." Asked by Todd if he'd shut down the government over Planned Parenthood's abortion services, Trump said, "I'd have to think about it. It bothers me greatly that they're doing the abortions." Gun Patrol: "The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states," he wrote. During his kickoff speech in June, Trump vowed to "fully support and back up the Second Amendment." Trump says there's another way to fight crime - by empowering "law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves." "We love the Second Amendment, folks. Nobody loves it more than us, so just remember that," Trump said to cheers and applause from his supporters who were gathered at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip. "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun," said Donald Trump in 2000 in his book, The America We Deserve. "We need to protect our Second Amendment right," he said while pointing out into the audience. "You have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You have that right and they want to take it away," Trump said. "Well, I'm a big Second Amendment person, big, as you probably know," said Trump. "If you had more guns, you'd have more protection because the right people would have the guns," he said. Citing violence in Chicago and Baltimore, Trump said "a lot of the places where you have the biggest problem is where they have the strongest laws," but he demurred when pressed on national gun laws. In the wake of America's most recent mass shooting, Republican front-runner Donald Trump said, "It's not a gun problem, it's a mental illness problem." For the former, he stated, "I am very pro Second Amendment," referring to "just released papers" on the subject at donaldtrump.com. He called for an expansion of treatment programs, citing "red flags that were ignored" that led to recent shooting incidents, and noting that law-abiding gun owners are "blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen." "Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "Trump told crowds, I was talking to some of the people before what would you like me to focus on and they said second amendment, second amendment," explained Trump. Taxes: However, Trump conceded, "I try and pay as little tax as possible, because I hate what they do with my tax money. I hate the way they spend our money." In terms of taxes, Trump has said, "I know people making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no taxes, and I think it's unfair." "By my calculations 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan -- the other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," Trump said in a statement introducing his plan in November 1999. "We will bring a lot of additional companies in because our tax rates are going way down," Trump said. Republican candidate Donald Trump said in a statement that "we need leadership in Washington to get the tax code changed so companies will be coming to America, not looking for ways to leave." "When you have a hedge fund guy who's making $200 million a year and ... he's paying a very low rate of taxes, it's not fair and I think it says a lot," he said. "Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American's taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth," added Trump. During a news conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump declared that his proposal will "provide major tax relief for middle-income and for most other Americans." As Trump noted (at about the 3:25 mark) in the same interview, support for a graduated income tax -- as we currently have -- "doesn't mean a raise in taxes. That means rich people might be paying less than they are paying right now." "If you make $200 million a year you pay 10 percent, you're paying very little relatively to somebody that's making $50,000 a year and has to hire H&R Block because it's so complicated," Trump said of a flat tax. On taxes he said he would "start off by simplifying our current system. Put H & R Block out of business ... make it nice and easy for people to understand and reduce taxes." The other Trump said on Fox News earlier this year that he favors "a fair tax, a flat tax or certainly a simplified code." He said he would raise taxes on unfair imports, then, "The lobbyists are going to come and see me, but I don't give a s-- about lobbyists." "No business of any size, from a fortune 500 company to a mom-and-pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig, will pay more than 15 percent of their business income in taxes," Trump said. "A lot of families go through hell over the death tax," Trump said. "I want the hedge fund guys to pay more in taxes," he said, as he worked the crowd on his way out of the event. Budget and Spending: "We are going to cut the Department of Education," Trump said when asked if he would cut spending to curb the national debt. Trump added that as a result of the funding plan, Americans will have to "absorb higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty, and more corporate welfare." Trump, asked for details of his budget plan, said, "We will cut so much, your head will spin." National Security Trump argued in a USA Today op-ed published last weekend that he "would support and endorse the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if the use of these methods would enhance the protection and safety of the nation. The military under Trump, he said, will "be so big, so strong, so powerful, nobody is going mess with us." "We need much tougher, much smarter leadership - and we need it NOW!" Trump said on Twitter. "I will build a military so strong that we'll never have to use it because they are going to be saying, 'I'm not going to mess with that guy,' " he said, without explaining how he would bolster America's defense. Mr. Trump said he would like to "build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live." "We have to have a strong military so people don't mess with us," Trump said. Economy and Jobs: "Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas," wrote Trump. H-1B visa. The US H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields such as in architecture, engineering, mathematics, science, and medicine. "This country is dying. And our workers are losing their jobs," Donald Trump declared. And last month, Trump slammed Apple's foreign manufacturing, vowing, if elected, to make the company "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries." "You see our businesses moving over to Mexico. You see other people are moving into Mexico. Mexico is going to become the next China on a smaller level," Trump says. "I will bring jobs back from China, I will bring jobs back from Japan. I will bring jobs back from Mexico," Trump said. "If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs and I want to give the people that own that property more than it's worth," he said, suggesting a price structure at odds with the one he tried to use in 1994. In the Derry event referenced above, Trump went into a familiar riff: "China is killing us! They've taken so much of our wealth. They've taken our jobs. They've taken our businesses, they've taken our manufacturing." Trump said the numbers will work out as long as "the economy grows the way it should grow, if I bring jobs back from China, from Japan, from Mexico, from so many countries." Asked why, Trump responded, "Because it wouldn't work, because it's too much. You have to bring in jobs you have to take the jobs back from China, you have to take the jobs back from Mexico." "I will create jobs like you've never seen," Trump told reporters before his speech. He promised to "take jobs back from Japan. I'm going to take jobs back from Mexico. I'm going to take jobs back from Vietnam." In an op-ed piece in last Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Trump asserted that "the worst" of Beijing's "sins" is the "wanton manipulation of China's currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs." Health Care: "I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people," said Trump. "We're going to repeal and replace the horror known as Obamacare, it is a horror," said Trump. "I want to get rid of Obamacare and get you something great," Trump vaguely offered. Today Trump said there are people who desperately need care and "you can't let em die in the streets." But in the 2011 volume, Trump complained that Obamacare was a scheme by liberals "to drag America closer to a so-called 'single-payer system,' otherwise known as total government-run health care." Bot of course, Trump thinks Obamacare is "a big, fat, horrible lie" and "a total catastrophe," which he's promised "is going to be a disaster." Foreign/ISRAEL POLICY Trump said as president, "there's nothing I would rather do than bring peace to Israel and its neighbors, generally. I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy." Says Trump in a campaign ad: "I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us." He said he wants U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but more importantly, "I want other countries to get on the ground fighting ISIS." Frontrunner Donald Trump offered his own strategy for dealing with Islamic State extremists and President Assad: "Let them fight each other and pick up the remnants." "Israel is safe with this one," Trump declared, poking his chest. He termed Riyadh the "world's biggest funder of terrorism," complaining that "Saudi Arabia funnels our petro dollars, our very own money, to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people while the Saudis rely on us to protect them." Decades ago he called on the United States to "stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves." "He made statements over the last couple of days that are incredible, trying to justify the war in Iraq. It can't be justified," Trump said, pointing most notably to a "skin in the game" reference Bush made in a foreign policy statement. Civil liberties: LAST TIME TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS HE ASKED THE PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR HAND IF THEY WERE READY FOR THIS HE ROSE HE HAND AND EVERYONE ELSE DID THIS MADE PEOPLE THINK THAT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO BE LIKE HITLER. NEVER COMPARE ANYONE TO HITLER TRUMP'S DAUGHTER MARRIED A JEWISH MAN SHE CONVERTED SHE IS A RELIGIOUS JEW AND HE IS HAPPY FOR ISRAEL HE WANTS MUSLIMS NOT GONE BUT HE WANTS MUSLIM TERRORISTS GONE THANK YOU. "These people always hit me with eminent domain, and frankly I'm not in love with eminent domain," Trump said. Trump added that "when eminent domain is used on a person's property, they get a fortune. And if they're smart they'll get two or three times the value of their property." He also cites a 2000 interview in The Advocate, in which Trump emphasizes his support for workplace discrimination protections and "strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protections and rights as married people." "I'M READY FOR SURVEILLANCE ARE YOU" Energy: "I'm in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy," Trump said. "We are going to bring the coal industry back 100 %" Trump said. "Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again," Trump said Tuesday. Trump suggested clean energy policies to reduce CO2 emissions would "imperil jobs" and "the middle class and lower classes." He discounts the "negative impact of natural gas, oil, and coal." He writes that sources of "green energy" are "really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves." And Donald Trump said Ohio's prosperity under Gov. John Kasich was a stroke of luck, "John got lucky with a thing called fracking, ok, he hit oil," he said. "I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems," Trump said Thursday, when asked about the debate's concluding exchange on climate change. Crime and safety "If they make one mistake its on your newscasts all night, all week, all month. The police in this country have done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order," Trump said. "I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood," Trump said. "Police and law enforcement, I will never, ever, let them down," Trump said at the candidate forum, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader. The video begins with the now infamous remarks Trump made last month during his presidential launch speech, in which he said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists." The Washington Post's Charles Lane, a regular "Special Report" pundit, faced off against radio host Laura Ingraham over Trump's June 16 comments, in which he said, among other things: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." "Our police officers have been treated horribly," Trump told ABC News aboard his private jumbo jet Wednesday.

470eba55-2019-04-18T16:37:40Z-00002-000

i think it should be legalzed because it keeps people out of jail and then my tax dollars wont go toward a new jail because of over population.

e9afb1c6-2019-04-18T15:19:00Z-00002-000

I respectfully disagree with you zeke.You can learn responsibility by doing chores and cleaning your room and not losing stuff. Homework can take a lot of time away from family.

e9afb1c6-2019-04-18T15:19:00Z-00004-000

there should be no homework so kids can go play with other people or do sports or talk with their family or spend time with their family

d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00000-000

Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.

e75eba1-2019-04-18T19:50:38Z-00001-000

I only saw a very short and seemingly ignorant opening and figured it was just stupid liberal bashing. I by no means meant to be rude. No matter: MY REPLY: No worries. No offense taken. ------------------------------------------ Welfare I assume you realize that all the money that goes into welfare comes from taxation, right? The government doesn't do anything but redistribute money taken from the people. With that logic, there's no way you can say that welfare from the government would be financially more substantial than the charity provided by NPO's and the average citizen. I think you underestimate the power of charity. The number of Non-Profit Organizations that exist to support the poor and needy is massive, and so is thier contribution to society. Without the burden of taxes on the average citizen, thier impact would only improve. Regardless, when the government says, "Just give us your money and we'll handle the rest", the obligation to give to charity is removed. You don't have a choice, the government is forcing it on you. All you're required to do is give your earnings to the government and they'll handle the rest. You don't get a say in the matter, hence less responsibility. ------------------------------------------ Social Security/Retirement Besides the fact that social security is completely broke, let us not forget that for every dollar that is placed in social security, a dollar is taken from the individual who's trying to save, as well as you or I who most likely pay this individuals salary. Ending the social security farce and letting people keep more of thier money (both the person saving, and thier employer, allowing for a higher salary) would force them to take responsibility for thier own retirement, whether it be to start a planned savings account or acquire the services of the private sector to manage thier retirement. Again, what Liberalism asks us to do is give our money to the government and trust that they will take care of everything else, hence, less responsibility. ------------------------------------------ Universal Health Care No matter what kind of health care you're refering to, your logic seems to be that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and eachother adequately, and since government is able IS able to take care of people adequately, we should give over responsibility for taking care of societies needs to the government. This is essentially lessening the responsibility of the individual. ------------------------------------------ Universal Education Wherever there's a gap, someone steps up and fills it. Take away free public education and give everyone reduced taxes and a pay increase. Almost immediately private sector businesses will step in and begin providing k-12 education. Competition will ensure that prices stay competetive. In addition, the reduced taxes and additional income would help increase affordability. Some states may choose to maintain thier own tax supported public education system, others may let the private sector fill this gap, whichever system works the best will eventually be adopted by the other states. This is called federalism. By the government taking the reigns and managing the education system (isn't that a conflict of interest? ), none of these opportunities for evolving education beyond the failing system that we have today exists. All we have a responsibility to do is hand our money over to the government and trust them to do the rest. ------------------------------------------ Abortion The freedom to make choices is a right, the ability to have those choiced acted upon is not. I design software, you may decide you want my software (your choice) but that doesn't mean you have a right to purchase it. Making choices is not a responsibility and alone means absolutely nothing, dealing with the consequences of our actions is a responsibility. By espousing the fact that abortion is a right, Liberalism is essentially telling people that they have a right NOT to suffer the consequences of thier irresponsibility if they don't want to. ------------------------------------------ Death Penalty/Prison So why should I fear stealing/killing/raping and going to prison if they're just going to take care of me and fix me up? No need to worry about being a responsible member of society if the consequences for doing otherwise are relatively minor, some might even say, beneficial. I think you're the one making prison sound like an advanced therapy center. Let me assure you, prison is a punishment, rehabilitation is the hopeful result but hardly the norm. Lessening the punishment for crimes you commmit is decreasing the responsibility of the individual to suffer the consequences of his actions. ------------------------------------------ Corporate Morality/Unions Unions were originally created to organize the efforts of the employees to petition the corporation for change, organize strikes, create social awareness, bring pressure on the company from outside sources such as the press, prompt legislative action, etc. The increased politicization of unions has turned them into not much more than a Liberal lobby who's primary interest is increased government control over private corporations, instead of letting the private sector, and private citizens manage thier own destiny. Again, the result is less responsibility (and less freedom) for the individial and for the business. ------------------------------------------ War This is off topic, but, it sounds like you're saying that Liberals are, for the most part, isolationists when it comes to national defense. If that's true, why then did a majority of the legislative branch vote for the War in Iraq? If all wars are between governments, what kind of war you think DOES warrant soldiers dying to fight? ------------------------------------------ YOU: -If you feel that way, fine, but my bliefs are what they are because I believe its what is best for society. Youre topic was "Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility" and i by no means am seeking to do that. I believe most, if not all, liberals would agree. MY REPLY: Your positions would say otherwise. If every position that Liberals hold decreases the personal responsibility, and freedom, of the individual, it certainly means that decreasing personal responsibility is either the goal or a stepping stone to the goal. Now, I will be honest and admit that it may very well be that most Liberals have nothing but good intentions. Free education, health care and retirement all might sound very good at first glance. It could be that most Liberals don't even realize that removing responsibility from the individual and placing it on the government is a KEY component of the transfer of power from people to government. The less responsibility that people have, the more they depend on others such as the federal government to take responsibility. It's possible that Liberals don't realize this. They may never get that far in thier thinking. What Liberals don't realize is that with less responsibility comes less freedom and fewer choices. This misplaced faith in an all powerful central government and belief that people aren't responsible enough to care for themselves is a hallmark of Liberalism (name one thing, other than national defense, that the federal government does well, much less better than anyone else? ). Lastly, all this talk of doing things for the "greater good of society" gives me the willies. Do you have any idea how many tyrants and failures used the cause of "the greater good" as license to take away the freedom of the individual? What is it that causes Liberals/Socialists/Communists alike to believe that a government has greater capability to provide and care for our needs than you or I?

11893e6b-2019-04-18T18:57:30Z-00002-000

Thanks flamebreath. ==Rebuttal to Round 2== C1: The Environment Response to global warming: Massive subsidies to prevent global warming are not cost effective. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kyoto Protocol cost member countries $220 billion, while averting only $95 billion worth of projected global warming harm. [1] These cost figures led the UN International Panel on Climate Change to recommend geo-engineering solutions to cool the globe (by blocking sunlight, for instance) rather than emissions reduction strategies (like subsidizing alternative energy) because the former is vastly more cost effective. And to play devil’s advocate: human-made global warming is far from proven. Looking at millions of years of CO2 levels, the data clearly shows that increases in CO2 lag behind increases in temperature by approximately 1000 years. [2] Physicist Richard Muller explains that as temperature levels increase, the ocean cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 and releases it into the atmosphere (just as warm soda cannot hold as much dissolved CO2). Thus, high temperatures cause increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. In addition, the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 380 parts per million (ppm). In the Ordovician period of the Prolezoic era, Earth had atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 4400 ppm but average temperature levels were far lower than they are today. [3] That’s more than 10 times the current concentration of CO2, but with lower temperatures – the correlation is far from clear. Response to Pollution: Coal power plants – which comprise 65% of US power production - produce more air pollution than gasoline, considering that they spew particulates into the air called black carbon. In fact, black carbon has a far larger (potential) contribution to global warming than CO2. According to V. Ramanathan of UC San Diego, “a mere 10% reduction in black carbon would be equivalent to eliminating 25 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions.” [4] Black carbon is also devastating to human health, causing respiratory problems and killing thousands of people in the U.S. each year, according to an analysis by Princeton. [5] Thus, subsidizing electric vehicles and increasing demand for electricity will mean that coal power plants will burn more coal, increasing – not decreasing – global warming and further damaging our respiratory health in the U.S. Response to oil dependence: Our energy security is not in a very bad situation right now. We still produce approximately 50% of our oil domestically. Of the 50% we import, we get most of our oil from Canada, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, none of which have any inclination to cut us off. Saudi Arabia has refused at least 3 recent attempts by OPEC to impose production quotas, both to protect their close relationship with the U.S. and because countries like Kuwait simply cheat the quotas, stealing Saudi market share. Response to “no emissions”: My opponent claims electric cars have no emissions. He forgets that these cars use electric power to charge, meaning the emissions still do exist, they are just emitted at the source of the dirty power plant (coal, natural gas) and not the car itself. Furthermore, nuclear power comprises 20% of our grid, but these power plants are between 40 and 50 years old and are thus nearing the end of their life cycles. Since it has been politically infeasible to build new nuclear plants since the Three Mile Island disaster, the grid will become even more dirty, as we build more coal and natural gas plants to replace our nuclear power plants. C2: Subsidy My opponent doesn’t explain here how much of a subsidy would be required to get people to buy fully electric cars. Right now, the typical fully electric sedan costs at least 3 tries the price of the average new car purchased in the United States. It would take a hefty and expensive subsidy to get any significant number of consumers to switch to electric vehicles. My opponent violates my Observation 3 multiple times here, as well, when he cites studies that are about plug-in hybrid vehicles, which are gasoline-powered cars with a small battery that can be charged through a wall-socket. These are not “electric vehicles;” they are “hybrids.” So the 2005 Department of Energy study is invalid because hybrids take far less electricity to charge than a fully electric vehicle. In addition, when the study says that we can replace our “small vehicle fleet,” it is referring to cars that are sedan size or smaller, which is misleading because many Americans own minivans and/or SUV’s. In addition, discussing hybrids is invalid because many hybrids, like the Honda Prius, are quite cost competitive, so they require absolutely no subsidies. The fact that hybrids are gaining popularity in the U.S. with no government intervention proves that government interference in the free market is unnecessary. Lastly, even if he could cite a study that we’d need no new power plants for electric vehicles, that doesn’t answer that the transformers that are on each street, pictured here http://tinyurl.com..., cannot handle the electricity load if everyone owned an electric vehicle, and they would all need to be upgraded, at the significant expense of the utility companies. C3: cost efficiency My opponent’s 2007 study is again about hybrids, not fully electric vehicles, which are much more expensive to charge. In addition, his study assumes that 1) everyone will charge their cars at night and 2) that utility companies will not change their pricing structure to compensate for increased demand for electricity at night. [6] Although right now electricity only costs 2 cents per kilowatt-hour at night (the figure the study uses), utility companies are switching to a more dynamic pricing model, using smart meters, that will more closely match demand. If everyone owned an electric car and charged it at night, electricity prices at night would resemble prices during the day. Considering that the average price of electricity in the U.S. is 6 times higher than the cost figure the study uses, then we get that plug-in hybrids would cost $3.50 per gallon of gasoline-equivalent. [7] This is roughly the same price that gasoline currently costs in the U.S., so it’s not much improvement. Lastly, my opponent’s study ignores the initial price of the car and measures only the price of the energy used to power the car. This is invalid. For example, fusion power promises to one day allow cars to run on water. However, the cars would be prohibitively expensive. A fusion powered car with a purchasing price of $5 million, but a per mile energy cost of 3 cents, is not necessarily superior to a car that costs $20,000 with a per mile energy cost of $3. Electric cars may cost less to power (per mile), but they are at least three times as expensive to initially purchase as the average passenger vehicle in the U.S. Taking into account the inevitable change in electricity pricing and the initial purchase price, electric cars are not cost efficient. I’ll refute my opponent’s third Round in my 4th Round. Citations [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Crowley, Thomas J.; Baum, Steven K. (1995). "Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels". Journal of Geophysical Research [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com...

2f73060-2019-04-18T15:23:25Z-00000-000

Counter-arguments “The / A government role is to ensure the well being of it's citizens, and make the best calls regarding their welfare.” This is a faulty premise. As shown in my appeal to liberty argument, people have the natural right to make dangerous choices. It can be argued that unless people are hurting others (arguably second hand smoke, but that is not every case) then their rights should not be infringed upon. Cigs) Again, people have the right to make dangerous choices (heading: A3). The argument made there has largely been dropped, too. Some people also take a lot of enjoyment out of smoking. “Tobacco alone causes over 5 million deaths yearly…” My opponent has quoted a worldwide statistic. This exaggerates the claim. For example, in Australia 1 million occur each year. Australia’s population is ~23 million. If the world population is 7 billion, then it can be assumed that 304 million people are injured via sport. Second hand effects) Parents should not smoke around their children. There is no argument here that necessitates the banning of cigarettes. Just like it should be illegal to give children alcohol, it should be illegal to smoke near children. “Just in the US alone second hand smoke causes 34,000 deaths from heart attacks and 7,300 from lung cancer.” People can always move away from the smokers. If they cannot, there are usually laws in place that create a smoke-free zone (such as certain pubs or university campuses). If people want to hang around the smoke and be negatively affected, then that is their choice. Re-Rebuttals A1 I am dropping this argument to focus on the ones which won me the debate. A2 Again, dropping. A3 My opponent completely ignores the latter of my argument. The appeals to liberty and the comparison to sport are therefore dropped and are enough for me to win the debate. “Their is a fundamental difference between using a product for what it's intended to be used for, and having an accident. Car's are not made with the knowledge they are knowingly going to kill (x) amount of people.” There really is not. As I showed, the statistics indicate that we can predict how many people will die in car accidents. There is no question as to whether driving can cause you to die. Besides, even if the intent to kill is not there, that does not make the people who die less dead. A4 “but if you ban them it's safe to assume you can reduce the death count from possibly 8 million to 1 million, or half a million in the us to 100,00 thousand.” This is a guess. With Marijuana and alcohol, people still used it in huge numbers despite it being banned. The banning of something does not stop people from using it, plus it opens black markets and drug cartels. “Banning things always results in the product being harder to get.” My examples given (particularly the marijuana) render this inaccurate in the long-run. “Take gun bans for example…” Guns are different because they can instantly kill someone, whereas smoking cannot. For example, you could accidentally kill something with a gun, yet you could not accidentally kill someone with cigarettes in the same way. Conclusion: why you should vote for me Cigarettes are a harm that people choose, not one which is forced. Similar to sports, which is a point my opponent completely dropped, there are positives to be found in smoking, or else people would not do it. Again, this is people’s liberty at stake. Also, drug cartels and black markets result from banning things, which is also a serious problem that my opponent has no real answer to, partially due to his/her gun example being non-congruent. Finally, my opponent, I think, has shown that there should be restrictions on cigarettes (i.e. not smoking in the presence of babies), but an outright ban infringes on people’s liberties and encourages illegal trade. Thus, my ultimate argument is that restrictions are a good idea, a ban is going too far. Resolution negated.Thank you for reading :)

e057cec7-2019-04-18T15:04:52Z-00003-000

Introduction The status quo is that animals are widely and generally used to be experimented on with certain chemicals and products to find out if those certain chemical and products are safe and effective to humans. Thus, it is the burden of the Con to prove why this status quo should change. He must provide strong arguments supported by evidence and alternatives as to why his proposal should be accepted. On other hand, I will be defend the status quo by also providing good arguments backed by pieces of evidence. The proposal of Con is ambiguous as he fails to set the parameters of this debate as to what extent the ban on animal testing should be, whether it is absolute or not. Because of that, I would assume that it is an absolute ban that he wants. Rebuttals: a. Animals should not be tested on because animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Response: It is given that animals do experience cruelty and pain to some extent. However, the question is not whether they experience pain, but whether that pain is justified. I would say that it is justified because the benefits outweigh the cost. Take note that scientists inflict pain on animals not for fun but for research. Consequently, this research would greatly enhance both human and animal lives and welfare. (I would elaborate this later) b. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Response: Con, thank you for giving this statistics that would support my case. c. Other alternatives to animal testing exists. Response: Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place. [16] Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain.1 In short, those alternatives you stated are not as effective as animal testing. With your alternatives, it would only endanger the lives of humans for producing inaccurate results. Arguments: a. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. 2 Moreover, because animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives, and the survival rates from many major diseases are at an all-time high, thanks to the discovery of new drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. According to the American Cancer Society, the fight against cancer has seen 24 significant biomedical advances in the past 30 years.3 Similarly, Animal research for animal health also has resulted in many life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, freedom from arthritic pain, and vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and hip dysplasia can save, extend or enhance the life of a beloved pet, and new reproductive techniques are helping to protect threatened species.4 b. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 5 c. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. [All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. 6 Sources: 1 2Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org... 3 4 Trull, F. Animal-test research has saved many human lives. URL: http://www.mofed.org... 5 6 Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org...

abf51f3b-2019-04-18T12:32:31Z-00004-000

"Homework should be banned. I believe this because international comparison of order students have found that homework has not any relation with tests, this means that students don't make a better job in tests with help of homework, so I believe that homework is a waste of time, it is not really achieving is objective which is making students to learn."Homework is not meant to be in direct relation with tests. Homework is used as a tool to advance and reinforce learning - teachers will set homework based on a subject which has been recently taught to the students to help them better understand the work. Tests will often ask the information learnt in lessons - it's very helpful if students have done extra work based on these topics to give fuller and better answers.A study focused on homework, using a sample of 3000 kids, found that students who did 2 hours of work after school achieved better test results and performed better generally at school."Also after school, students should rest or do other activities instated of doing homework. Students should not have their brain closed only in studying, they need also to have social life and make activities and this is restricted with homework."According to many statistics, the amount of homework set on average for kids is around 1 hour a night, occasionally 2. This is not too much as to restrict social life or hobbies. Do an hour of homework before you go out and get drunk, then you can have the rest of the weekend to cure your hangover."Studies have shown that many students find homework as a boring and tired activity"That's obvious. Most students find school itself to be a "boring and tired" activity, doesn't mean we should ban school."With homework, there are many possibilities of students cheating,"That's an issue with the student, not homework. You're doing yourself a disservice if you cheat at something as trivial as homework."search with the Internet" Searching with the Internet isn't cheating. You're still looking at the questions and writing down the answers, you're just doing it the easy way. Besides, claiming homework is easy because you can cheat contradicts your argument - if it's easy to just Google the answers then why is it taking up so much of your social life? "Also, sometime times shy students that don't ask questions in class, don't understand the lesson and will find homework very difficult to realize."This is a nonsensical argument. If a student is shy then it's up to the teacher to realise that and take care of them. How is homework at fault here? If anything it helps that student because then they can Google the subject/read a textbook and learn for themselves."Many children will like to join to a club or another extra-activity and this will stress them more, just because they have homework, this social activities are also very good, so children should not get stressed about joining to them."This is pretty much the same point as your second quotation. Same answer.Homework should not be more than 2 or 3 hours a night. However, banning it completely is a ridiculous suggestion. Countless studies have shown that students who do extra work after school do better in their exams. That's a fact. If anything, homework should be made to be more relevant to the subject/topic students are studying. I remember the dreaded "write a letter to Shakespeare!" homeworks which made me want to vomit up my cheap canteen lunch. Gives me nightmares just thinking about it.But, no, it should not be abolished completely.

ab490cb9-2019-04-18T19:45:33Z-00000-000

I'll try to hit each issue. -Poor's health Care. You've still given no evidence how your system provides health care for those who need it but can't afford it. You simply just keep repeating "tax breaks for all". that doesn't mean people will be able to afford health care. Once again, a system of public and private health care works best: people who can't afford it can get health care, and people with money can get higher standards. It's the best of both worlds. And as far as the whole "waiting list" thing goes, how is this problem unique to public health care? because of a lack of resources, time, and doctors, and an abundance of patients, wait lists are inevitable under any system. it's just life. -Regulations 1.) High price of equipment is the fault of the market, not regulations. Good quality equipment costs money> I thought that someone who supported the free market would understand that. 2.) High insurance rates have to do with the market, as well. It costs a lot to cover someone in a case of malpractice. It is completely logical that malpractice insurance is high. You've given no actual evidence of how this is the legislator's fault. All you've given are two examples where prices are high. -Historic Free Market/FDA First of all, Private schools ARE subject to regulation: http://www.ed.gov... You keep referring to competition as the save all, but all that can really do is keep prices down. History has proven (look at the 19th century and early 20th century) that companies will take advantage wherever they can. They'll do whatever it takes to cut costs, often at the expense of the consumer and worker. And I don't trust you on the FDA point anymore because you started out arguing that it was ten years, and now it's eight. Also, the phrase "average of eight years" makes me think that they're trying to get these tested as quickly as possible, and that it's not required that they delay it for that long. I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE BEING THOROUGH. And you've also given no example of how the free market can actually do this. what company is going to pay some competitor to test their products. You see, without the regulation requiring them to got through the FDA, they don't have to do all that. It's cheaper not to. and it's not like consumers can just boycott those companies; you're not going to stop eating and you're not going to stop taking medication. we need the FDA's regulation. I know I've pounded this throughout the debate, but "The Jungle" really illustrates the need for the FDA. In fact, the FDA was created after "The Jungle" exposed the horrible conditions. -Sweden Once again, waiting lists are not a problem that is unique to any health care system. With complete privatization, you're still going to be managing a lack of resources, time, and doctors while counterbalancing with an abundance of patients. It doesn't matter what system you use, waiting lists will always exist because we can't possibly provide for everyone perfectly. -Fewer doctors This point is a nonsequitur. There are not going to be an infinite number of doctors and resources. A CAPITALIST SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SCARCITY OF RESOURCES. Look at the current health care system in the US. Is it privatized? For the most part, yes. We have some programs and regulations, but there are still companies doing their jobs. Are there still waiting lists? YES. Furthermore, even if everything is under the government (which I repeat, is not my suggestion; my opponent is attempting to straw man my case), then you're not going to have a sudden lack of doctors. There is no actual evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu... That's a map representing physicians per capita by country. the darker blue it is, the more doctors they have. as you can see, we're equal with Canada and Sweden and France. we're not going to have less doctors with any universal health care system. My opponent's point about this is unfounded. Waiting lists are a problem for any health care system. I've refuted all of my opponent's points. He has offered no evidence through this entire debate, while I have pointed you to valid sources several times. In fact, his entire argument, when looking at his summary, seems to be that he just doesn't want to pay taxes. Clearly, the CON has won this debate.

a27442f9-2019-04-18T12:19:12Z-00000-000

well as you say video games aren't violent it's a fact check my proof: http://health.usnews.com...

2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00001-000

I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low. You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.

2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00004-000

Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested.

2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00006-000

My belief is that the corporate tax should not be cut to 0%. However, this does not mean that it should not be lowered at all. Corporations are by definition: "a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes." [1] Corporations can hold huge amounts of money, and they are expected to make money (from shareholders), and they often engage in illegal activities with leftover money, so they can make money, thus being able to increase stock prices and therefore revenue. [2] Also, corporations may move entire parts of the company overseas to not be taxed. This is a problem because it worsens the economy. The same effect would be felt with no corporate tax rate. This is my political opinion, as well, that most corporations legally bribe politicians, and buy their support through Super-PACs. This is why major politicians are able to fund their campaigns, and why corporations get what they want. Corporations funded most of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney"s campaigns, with about $489,660,089; and $366,336,696; respectively. Top two contributors were the University of California/Microsoft Corporation, and Goldman Sachs/Bank of America, respectively [3]. So my idea is "the less they have, the better." [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://phys.org... [3] http://www.opensecrets.org...

9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00003-000

COUNTER-REBUTTALS (Number corresponds to Op's Rebuts in num order) 1) People do have the right to protect themselves, I will concede this point. That right ends where another person's rights begin, however. Constitutional rights have limits on them; the classic example being that I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, because it may cause a panic and get people hurt. The same is true in regards to the right to bear arms. If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen. Your rights end here, because it is a danger to the public health to have such weapons at large in society. You also alluded to home defense, and I will address this. The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him. Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military. [1] 2) I do not doubt the US constitution on this issue, I only doubt the interpretation that certain elements of society make of the second amendment. If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc. The list of destructive weapons that would be allowed to enter society goes on, but it's a moot point because fortunately we're smart enough as a society to not take the wording in the constitution literally. We recognize that there are some legitimate circumstances where private citizens have the right to own firearms. Now in regards to the second part of your statement, I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright. So we must establish that gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and that I am not arguing for gun prohibition. The three categories I listed are legitimate purposes for firearms ownership, and I will explain why. -Personal Defense: Firstly I'd like to point out that not everyone should be entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. In most situations ownership of a handgun will actually bring more harm than good to your household, however, there are certain situations where handgun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is practical and has sound reasoning. One example that comes to mind is a shop owner, who must personally carry over $10,000 in cash from his safe to the bank once a month. This man should be allowed to carry a handgun while he performs this task, because he is putting himself at a great risk when he carries so much money on his person. [1] -Hunting: Hunters often play a vital part in keeping the population of certain species of animals at an acceptable level. Thus hunters should be able to continue playing their part in conservationism. Furthermore, hunting firearms are designed for hunting animals and not killing people, therefore the rate of fire on these weapons are slower than military grade weapons and the bulky size of many of these rifles make them impractical for close quarters fighting. [4] -Showmanship Shooting and Other Sports: The weapons used in showmanship shooting are very similar to hunting firearms, and to the people that participate in these sports, this is their livelihood. Since these weapons pose little danger to the public health, and the trade is a livelihood to many showmanship shooters, this is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. 4) Even those with a rudimentary knowledge of firearms know that there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. The 9mm rounds used in handguns are not capable of piercing the protective body armor that police officers wear, and handguns are not capable of sustaining the same rate of fire as an assault rifle, nor do they have as many rounds per magazine. Assault rifles are weapons designed specifically for combat, the ammunition is designed specifically to destroy vital organs and end life. Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted. To say that a handgun has the same potential of causing human death as an assault rifle is absurd. Furthermore, I will reiterate once again that the centerpiece of my argument is that we need more gun control and not gun prohibition. 5) We can easily do this, because it follows simple market principal. If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals. As I stated in my opening arguments, it is painfully easy to obtain illegal firearms. Criminals can simply go to gun shows and exploit a law, which allows gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks. Barring that they can purchase weapons directly from people with federal firearm licenses illegally. By simply changing the law and regulating gun shows and strengthening the ATF so they can inspect federal firearm license holders more efficiently, we can drastically reduce the supply of illegal firearms. [2][3] REBUTTALS 1)Rights As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact. If we give you the ability to easily obtain an assault rifle to defend your home with, we're also providing that same easy access to the people that are willing to turn around and sell these guns to criminals for a profit. Not controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons into public is a danger to the public, because these weapons will be used by criminals to commit crimes. If these dangerous weapons provided some benign use to the public, then it would be a risk worth taking, but they are not and so it is only logical to prohibit their sale. 2)Responsibility It is good to see that my opponent agrees that gun control is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal element of our society. Unfortunately he seems to consider knives and rocks to be as deadly a weapon as firearms. Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation. 3)Freedom My opponent suggests that regulating firearms will lead us down the path to communism. This is absurd. The constitution does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others, and that's what we'd be doing if we had no gun control. Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs. This is the America without gun control, and the America my opponent seems to want. Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out. Then we'll have to give the police even bigger weapons I suppose, perhaps we'll just settle for replacing their police cruisers with tanks. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://gunvictimsaction.org... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.huntinginvirginia.net...

e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00002-000

My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement "" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote "" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond "a lot of hacking in internet". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...

e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00003-000

Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don

e5f6de56-2019-04-18T14:08:24Z-00001-000

The American ideology is typically peace through strength and this is unfortunate, Police today are gaining brutality charges more & more and honestly if police didn't continue to use brutality then people would stop questioning the officer's judgment, if they ployed in a more peaceful matter then we would be in a more peaceful environment where citizens & authorities

89fd39b5-2019-04-18T18:04:03Z-00004-000

I accept the challenge! If you allow sick people marijuana as medicine, they may become addicts once they are better, and begin to use it illegally. Marijuana is not medicine, it is a recreational drug, and should remain illegal.

ea8c0b30-2019-04-18T12:45:13Z-00000-000

Okay, you did make good arguments, but here are some undeniable facts(supported with sources). A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that 'Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long lasting increased risk of violent death'. Here's the source where I found this piece of information: David Frum, "Are Gun Accidents 'Very Rare'?," www.thedailybeast.com, Feb. 20, 2013 According to a March 10th, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%. P. Cummings, T.D. Koepsell, D.C. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R.S. Thompson, "The Association between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide," American Journal of Public Health, June 1997 Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims(235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least employed protective behavior. Michael Planty and Jennifer L. Truman, "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011," www.bjs.gov, May 2013 A June 2013 Institute of Medicine report states that 'almost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction'. That means that legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. Institute of Medicine, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," www.iom.edu, June 5, 2013 So these are the arguments I've just presented: More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths, guns are rarely used in self defense, and legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals.

ea8c0b30-2019-04-18T12:45:13Z-00001-000

I have to say that you yourself lacked evidence yet you criticized me not having any quotes. So I will change that. #1. We have a background check. I'll type it slowly, back-ground check! In order for anyone to actually buy a gun they have to get a background check to see if they have criminal records. Nothing new here. Besides, you mention Chicago, the murder capital of the U.S. You must know that Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country yet over Chicago has had over 650 murders this year alone! Look it up. http://heyjackass.com... If you restrict the gun laws to make it would be very difficult for anyone to get a gun, do you know who will follow those laws? Answer - the law abiding citizens. So know it is very difficult for a "good guy" to get a gun so now the criminals have guns because criminals break the laws and now law abiding citizens can't defend themselves. You mentioned gun-related suicides as well. Here is an article on how many people commit suicide. https://afsp.org... So the article says in 2014 the suicide per capita was ~13 per 100,000 people, yet the gun per capita data in the U.S. does not go hand in hand. In the United States there are approximately 88 guns per 100 people or 270 million guns total. So the suicide rate compared to guns in the U.S. is very low. Let's look at South Korea and their suicide rate just as another example. This is a bit older from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com... South Korea nearly has 25 suicides per 100,000 people, about double that of the U.S. So South Korea must just have guns spilling out onto the streets. Right? Wrong. According to another article from the Washington post, South Korea has 1.1 guns per 100 people. So that means that the United States has 88x the amount of guns per capita than in South Korea, yet their suicide rate is double the United States. It's a myth, and here is the article to prove that. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Oh, and here is one from Duke with sources and everything proving what I have just spoke about. https://people.duke.edu... So you see, I have proven that gun control is just myths, no matter what people want to say: people get background checks to get a gun, number of guns in this country to not stimulate the suicide rate, and gun control just doesn't work.

f08ced27-2019-04-18T15:30:33Z-00002-000

1. Personal right Con ignores my arguments on second hand smoke and the fact that marijuana is less harmful than smoking. My arguments still stand."If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day?"The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions, not others around them. Plus, as argued in round 1, the ones that do affect others in the above list are necessary risks. “Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. “ This ignores my first argument which showed that marijuana is less harmful than smoking, which by con's logic means that smoking should be banned since marijuana is banned. Plus, in an utilitarian society, personal rights can be reduced to benefit society as a whole. For example, hate speech can be banned but is not a violation of freedom of speech. 2. Second hand smoke Con uses an argument from authority by quoting a single expert and using it to "debunk" established, peer reviewed reports. Con ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies support a casual link between second hand smoke and childhood asthma, stroke, and lung cancer. Con uses a single example instead of looking at the overwhelming majority of studies. (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org...)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...) The above are meta-studies which aggregate results of many studies. 3. Buisiness Con ignores my previous argument, which proved that smoking bans do not affect businesses. Con restates his case instead of providing new evidence. My original argument from last round: Con claims that establishments such as bars and restaurants will get reduced profits if a smoking ban takes place. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits stayed the same, and pub profits dipped slightly but increased in the long run. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This proves that economic issues do not result from smoking bans. 4. Taxation While the highest amount of tax per pack of cigarettes is $6.16 in the U.S., the estimated cost of a single pack of cigarettes on society caused by reduced productivity and deaths is $7. Many smaller cities have lower tax rates for cigarettes than $6.16. This shows that even with taxation, smoking is not worth it. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 5. E-cigs Con's argument goes like this: P1. If people can quit smoking, smoking should not be banned. P2. People quit smoking with E-cigs. C. Smoking should not be banned. This does not make sense, as even if people are able to quit smoking, smoking is still a risk. People can quit illegal drugs, but illegal drugs are banned. By con's logic, I can argue that: -People can quit drugs by slowly reducing the amount of drugs they take. -Gradual reduction requires the drugs to be continued to be taken during the quitting period. -Illegal drugs should be legalized because the treatment requires small amounts of them. Conclusion Con has not successfully refuted my arguments, and in one case restated a debunked argument without using sources or new evidence. I believe that I have met my burden of proof.

99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00003-000

Thank you as well - I am fully aware that this is a debate about recreational marijuana. You make some very good points as well.Rebuttals:(Rebuttal for your first paragraph): I am fully aware of that. According to this map: https://en.wikipedia.org...Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Hawaii are the only four states so far to legalize recreational marijuana. Pennyslvania, which is the state currently pending for legalization - used to not have it allowed at all. States such as: New York, Nevada, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Deleware, Conneticut, Rhode Island, and Massachussetts; all have marijuana decriminalized. Most other states have marijuana legal in some form or for a certain purpose. The only states who outright ban marijuana completely are: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Wyoming, Kansas, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennyslvania. That means that only 11/50 states are in SUPPORT of marijuana in some way, shape, or form. And many more states in 2015 are pending for legalization such as California and Pennsylvania (as mentioned). The point I am trying to make is that most states are in suppport of marijuana, and it is not just a random group of people who support it somewhere in the united states. "As Gallup shows, support for legalization is at 62 percent among adults under 30, 56 percent among those aged 30 to 49." This piece of evidence means that a majority of adults beliebe marijuana should be legalized.(Rebuttal for second paragraph): While that may be true - over the counter drugs actually cause more fatalities then (more dangerous) drugs you have mentioned. I understand that this debate souly focuses on marijuana but take a look at this statistic: CAUSE OF DEATHS FROM DRUGS PrescriptionDrugs Street DrugsCombined: 39% 45% (Amphetamine + Heroin + Methamphetamine + Cocaine) ~http://www.drugfreeworld.org...This statistic shows how perscription drugs kill more people then a drug like marijuana would (you cannot overdose on marijuana, but it does kill like any other drug, when hollucinating and driving especially). Making marijuana legal would give people an OPTION to use it very often or not so, THE SAME CHOICE people make with prescription drugs. So what are we going to do? Ban over the counter drugs now? No, we cannot do that, and neither can we keep this from people as a choice (you stated how this argument was not for medical purposes, but this paragraph you mentioned was on that topic - I am becoming confused).(Rebuttal for "responce to second rebuttal"): "In 2014, Colorado retailers sold $386 million of medical marijuana and $313 million for purely recreational purposes. The two segments of the market generated $63 million in tax revenue, with an additional $13 million collected in licenses and fees." ` so far from Colorado's legalization of the drug, they already made MILLIONS of dollars in sales of the drug - a tax profit of $76 million total. THAT IS ONE STATE ALONE. For theoretical purposes, lets pretend that all 50 states had it legalized and all made a $76 million dollar profit. That would generate a three billion eight hundred million dollar tax revenue to go towards drug rebab etc. This would COMPLETELY outweigh the cost needed for drug rehab - and the government will still make a profit in the end. While that may be true, as you have mention, nuclear weapons are illegal because they can KILL soo many people if given to the wrong hands. They can affect INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. But marijuana cannot do that, it only effects the person consuming the drug and IN RARE CASES some of their peers - not killing hundreds of people at once for someone else's mistake. That is why the government has banned those kinds of weapons. As you have mentioned, the USA IS A FREE COUNTRY; and with freedom, comes freedom of choice. Think of ammendments such as 1, 11, etc. with freedom laws;(http://constitution.findlaw.com...).(Rebuttal for final paragraph): Only 9% of people who try marijuana become addicted - that is a SMALL percentage compared to the 91% who do not get hooked. Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now. That is because the goverment is not going around making commertials saying; "Marijuana is soo cool, you should try it!" etc. The government would simply be dicriminalizing the drug and making it legal and NOT PROMOTING it in ANY WAY. Even though the government wants to protect us the best they can, we all know they cannot protect us from EVERYTHING, that is just common sense and logic. But giving people freedom of choice in another form (because there are so many in this country already), in my opinon, would be something to be thankful, happy, grateful, and supportive of (as you have mentioned yourself).Citations:http://prospect.org...;http://www.drugfreeworld.org...;http://www.washingtonpost.com...;http://constitution.findlaw.com...;

99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00006-000

Thank you. It's true that this subject is a matter of opinion, as many debates are; however, I would like to bring some scientific reasoning and research in the negative effects of recreational marijuana use to the table. 1. Marijuana, or cannabis, is a drug known by many to bring about feelings of relaxation and freedom from troubles. While this may be beneficial for medicinal use, the legalization of this drug can have drastic effects, both short-term and long-term, on the population of our society. While some of these issues may seem manageable, the detrimental influence they have on the life of a person as a whole are too great for the national government to overlook. Some of the physical effects of marijuana are listed below. Short term effects: - Distortion of the senses - Impaired short-term memory - Panic and anxiety attacks and feelings of paranoia - Poor coordination and reduced reaction time - Increased risk of cardiac problems due to increasing of heart rate - Irritation of the throat and lungs - Overall impaired sense of judgment Long term effects: - Increased susceptibility to illnesses which could prove to be fatal - High risk of developing a form of mental illness, including but not limited to depression, schizophrenia, and psychosis - Strongly reduces libido and the production of sex hormones, thus decreasing the ability to conceive - Overall reduced motivation and impaired ability to focus on, organize, and learn/retain information - Destruction of lung fibers and the formation of lesions on the brain - Growth disorders of the user or fetus inside a pregnant female user I again emphasize that, although these symptoms of marijuana use may appear to be tolerable to some users, frequent use of the drug poses immense risks to each individual user. While use of marijuana will not lead to overdose or direct death, the consequences of using this drug can pose serious threats to the lives of users and others. 2. Among these threats is the unfortunate destruction of an individual's capacity to learn. Whether in school or on the job, learning is an integral part of life that helps to ensure our well-roundedness. Though the government may appreciate increased revenue due to a tax on marijuana sales, it would be unfortunate for the investment it puts into public education to go to waste due to ineffectiveness in marijuana users. This is not to say that every student who attends a public institution uses or will use marijuana; however, with its legalization, the increased access to it could be tempting for curious teens to experiment with. These teens will become the adults of tomorrow, the leaders who set an example for future generations; should many lack the motivation to create a better world, it is not only the individual users but society as a whole that will be affected by their choices. In addition, in the workforce, oftentimes new regulations, processes, etc. are implemented that must be known and carried out in order to complete work appropriately and successfully. Should a frequent cannabis user arrive at work unable to comprehend/carry out these new implementations, depending upon the type of work, this could pose dangers for the clientele and coworkers, or the user him/herself, who could be laid off. This on a grander scale, as a result, would lead to a potential increase in the national unemployment rate, an event that the government would not like to see happen. A point to note: imagine you are in need of a crucial surgery and decide to have the operation done by a trusted, licensed surgeon. What if the surgeon went outside smoke some weed during the day and eventually returned to complete your surgery high and uncoordinated? Although this is a very specific situation, the moral behind this example can be applied in many a situation. 3. Although addiction to marijuana is not as common as is for other drugs (say, heroin or nicotine), it can not be deemed impossible. According to a 2013 study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, marijuana use accounted for an approximate 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million cases of drug dependency in the United States. So even if you, your buddies, or any other cannabis user you know has never been addicted, these statistics show irrefutable evidence that addiction has a likeliness to occur. And it is true that other such harmful drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legally sold and can benefit the economy, among all other products that are sold for economic profit. However, it is not unheard of for dependency on these drugs to lead users astray, which in some cases can lead to the destruction of relationships and loss of self-worth and happiness. It is human nature to look out for those close to us, and seeing what may occur as a result of using this substance, it is sensible for the government to want to protect its people from any impending harm. 4. Finally, as a part of my introductory argument, I believe that as Americans, we do have the right to choose what becomes of ourselves and what we believe is right and wrong. As a result, I accept all opinions and arguments from either side of this debate. I would just like to note that one of the main reasons our national government has prohibited legal marijuana use for all this time has been because it, in this sense, cares about the health and well-being of our people, as aforementioned. Although there are many citizens who could use marijuana responsibly and/or be lucky enough to suffer from no ill effects (the odds of which are not likely), there runs a great risk in legalizing a substance such as this which poses such consequences to the health, well-being, and character of the people and, as a result, the structure of our society - it is our choices today that influence the world tomorrow. I too look forward to the rest of this debate. Again, I respect any and all opinions and do not mean to offend anyone with my views or presented data from trustworthy sources. Thanks! Citations: http://www.brown.edu... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://townhall.com... http://www.pewresearch.org...

b4dd79cd-2019-04-18T17:27:57Z-00006-000

While I am all for alternatives to fossil fuels i have to say that nuclear energy is my least favorite. I may not produce any green house gasses it still is dangerous to dispose of it could kill many living thing the way that the careless scientest dispose of it. Not to mention the fact that it could create acid rain, and kill trees, fish, animals of all kinds, and human beings.

ef235bf3-2019-04-18T18:58:00Z-00002-000

Aren't they the vital components of teaching?

775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00002-000

The mental image of condoms stacked in a bowl like Halloween candy is quite humorous, but truly a ridiculous misinterpretation. I'm not saying to stuff the pockets of teens with rubbers. I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse, it merely increases the levels of pregnancy and STD's in teens. As a sort of case study, I present the words of an anonymous teenage mother, (they have been edited for profanity) " When I was 14 I got (sexually active), but I didn't know how dangerous ( sexual intercourse) was. I didn't take some health class or even know what a condom was. My (partner) didn't have condoms cuz the lady at the gas station told him to go get his parents. I wasn't gonna ask my mom to take me to a (gynecologist) so I just hoped my friends were right when they said you cant get preggers the first time... If I knew what I know I would be a college junior and not a baby-mama." If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful. These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... "A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion." All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety. These statistics show more information to back my position.

775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00004-000

Condom. Sex Ed. Birth control. These words are enough to send people into a frenzy, but why? It seems these days you're unable to tell a cheeky joke without offending someone; not by crudeness, but by a difference of opinions. People say things like "teaching safe sex encourages promiscuity" or "I don't believe in contraceptives, they should be unavailable" I, personally, strongly disagree, and believe I am not alone in this opinion. Safety should always outweigh sensitivity. "Prevention is the greatest cure," my grandmother often said while coating my skin in sunscreen "I cant stop the sun, but I wont let you burn". I believe she would say the same about sexual activity. We can't stop every child. We can't end the curiosity of young people. Instead of attempting the unreliable, we should be preventing negative outcomes. All children need to be educated about the changes in their body, and how to avoid negative experiences (I. Disease, Rape, pregnancy, injury, emotional harm etc.) When a young man becomes sexually active he should have constant access to condoms. If a young woman wants to have it, she ought to have a right to her own choice in birth control as well.

574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00002-000

Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

fd247fbe-2019-04-18T16:32:44Z-00002-000

Where did you find that under doses of vaccines cause bipolar disorder?: I'm saying that if edible vaccines were to be used for medication in bipolar disorder than an under dose would be very dangerous. You say edible vaccines are an unacceptable risk but isn't it worth it if it saves lives? I say its an unacceptable risk because instead of spending money to build these edible vaccines we could use the money to transport needle vaccines across the world. The second argument of mine is that edible vaccines would be a waste of time to evolve when we have much more other medical advances in our path. We also could use this money to transport the vaccines or work on advancing new stages into cancer treatment development. These two things are tied together as they both indicate that once we have extra time and money then we could possibly evolve into edible vaccines but that is clearly far away. I know it takes time because of the PDF by Charles Amtzen being written 14 years ago and indicating that the future of edible vaccines is near but 14 years later there has been little advancements. We could also use money to find out all the different causes of cancers and diseases.

b8d489fe-2019-04-18T19:50:40Z-00000-000

Apologies to my opponent for calling her a him, I was unaware and wrongfully assumed she was male. My opponent has wholly misunderstood my argument. Where it might normally be irrelevant that people eat animals for food, I was establishing this as a parallel case. It is for the same reasons that we should continue consuming animals that we should continue testing products on animals. We do both of these things because animals generally have no use to us besides the use we choose to use them for. An animal is useless to us unless we can get products from it (fur, milk, etc), get meat from it, or use it in any other way to help us. Included in this last option is the usefulness of a pet (gives the owner happiness), the usefulness of seeing eye dogs, police dogs, hunting dogs, etc, or the usefulness of an animal we use for product testing. My opponent directly asked "How is this a good thing? Hurting poor and harmless animals just to test products?" My opponent already answered that question himself: "...to test products?". It is good because testing products is useful to society, much more than the lives of a very small number of animals who otherwise would not be helping our society. My opponent also has come up with a supposedly better answer for the products that need testing: we should develop ways to test products without the possible rare harm to an animal. While it could be said that this would be preferable, we do not currently have such a method. Therefore, until such a method is created, we should continue testing on animals, as it is the best option we currently have. My opponent is hoping you will vote for him based on your own feelings, based on your own empathy he has appealed to. However, he has failed to show why it is wrong for us to test products on animals. Do not vote based on your own feelings; rather, vote based on which side made the more solid case. Thank you for reading. That is all.

b8d489fe-2019-04-18T19:50:40Z-00001-000

First off, I would like to point out I'm a female. Secondly, what does animal TESTING have anything to do with eating meat? I do agree that this is a part of the food chain, but do you have to also kill animals for useless things such as trying out a cosmetics line? Of course, there will be animals killed. It's a part of life. I do not object to that. What I AM trying to say here, however, is that we are not testing for the bare minimum and there are possible alternatives that could be created. "Animal testing is a good thing. " How is this a good thing? Hurting poor and harmless animals just to test products? "First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see. " I have another possibility also. I do agree that testing on humans would be a bad idea. Why don't we create scientifical ways to test products? If science and technology can create these amazing computers we are on, surely we can create alternatives to testing products. "Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead" Not if we create alternatives. Also, about your statement about the food chain. We are discussing animal testing. Not the food chain and being a vegetarian. That is off topic and a whole other debate. Same goes for your comments on bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single celled; they are not able to respond to surroundings as intelligently as animals that have more cells, and a NUCLEUS. Also, the bacteria are harming us. These poor animals are NOT harming us. Just to comment on your statement. I do not see one clear or visible statement you made about why animal testing is good and should be allowed.

b8d489fe-2019-04-18T19:50:40Z-00003-000

What else is there to really say? Animal testing is cruel. Just browse Google Images and you'll come up with many pictures of the poor animals. They have no voice, so we must speak for them.

82b6fb54-2019-04-18T18:27:32Z-00000-000

I'm not really sure how to respond to my opponent because much of what he said seems to be agreeing with me. He organized his response into three rebuttals and one new point, so I'll address each of them.1. All government spending introduces new money into the economy and taxes removes it"this argument has no basis. throwing cash in a shredder does not mean throwing cash in a garbage heap because that shredder may be the carrybag of the govt. it is not new money that govt. introduced. it is the same old money. "I'm not sure what my opponent means by "carrybag of the govt. " My point was that physical currenct (like bills) serves as a token to allow efficient trading of dollars in the private sector. Once those bills are returned to the government, they have no value to the government, since it is allowed to print them at will. Because the government can never run out of money, it (1) doesn't view the bills as having value, and (2) can never be insolvent in dollars.2. The "debt" is just the sum of the previous deficits (spending minus taxes)"the flaw in this reasoning is that without borrowing money how come govt. or any entity can spend that money? "Well, as I explained in the first round, a currency issuer spends differently than a currency user. The issuer of a currency does not need to acquire the currency before it spends it. It just spends it. I would also point out that I'm not aware of anyone who suggests that taxation is a means of borrowing money.3. there 2 types of U. S. savings bond: series 1 and EE. both earned interest rate Yes, they earn interest, however they also have a present value. That is the value they are worth right now. My point was simply that swapping them at present value for cash would not change how much "money" grandma has, although it would remove an interest stream from her. It would also not impact the government's fiscal position because this "repayment" of the debt would just be swapping one government issued piece of paper (bond) for another (cash).4. budget deficit is really good during recession time according to eminent This topic does not relate to solvency and suggests that the deficit is good, I'm glad my opponent agrees. In fact, when he does talk about solvency, the economist in the source supports the proposition:The deficit presents no solvency risk to the United States.

26df2dce-2019-04-18T15:21:53Z-00000-000

I understand that if I have a degree, and I have experience, and if I have all these other things, then I can be successful. Theres so much more to those statistics than just the degree. Also, when that degree becomes free, it become equivalent to not having a degree. Giving 4 whole years to everyone would essentially make it just as beneficial to not go at all. I have a few voting issues that I would like to bring up. 1. My opponent has failed to several arguments, which must mean he agrees with all of my arguments. 2. He really has not taken a stance. When I said something wouldn't work, he only talked about one thing in his argument. I would quote it, however it happened in every round, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find. 3. He ignored the specific numbers I gave, presumably because he knew there was nothing he could do about them. He merely said he understood it was "expensive", but he failed to explain how all $810 billion would instantly make it's way back to the government. 4. I would also like to point out that his second round was absurd. I had no where to rebut, and clearly he wasn't going anywhere either. Thank you.

a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00000-000

Once again, con does agree to his plagiarism! He admitted that he put absolutely NO link and I am glad we could not put a period to that branch of the this discussion by agreeing that there has been plagiarism. And now to move onto first counter refutation and then counter- counter refutation. So without any further ado let me begin with counter refutations:To refute my first contention, my opponent stated:"Although there are students who study and remember information, many teachers will FOCUS on the test, and afterwards, forget about making sure the students remember. This is called teaching to the test. Many students will remember the information ONLY for the test, and not for remembering information in the future. "However, a. ) my opponent provided absolutely no evidence to show that students forget things right after the test. If you prepare a student to the test, the student will learn the material. Schools don't hand out the tests and go over every problem. They teach the information during the year and perhaps spend a month or so before the tests for preparation. That preparation is usually a summary of what was learned through out the school year. Therefore, even though yes, teachers teach information that will most likely be on the test, they don't just go through the tests. They give students worksheets and extensive practice to prepare for the test and memorize the information to use in the future. To refute my second contention, my opponent stated:" When you are compared with other students for other districts, doesn't that tear down your confidence, knowing that colleges are looking for smart people and you just aren't the smartest. "However, people must learn to face the facts. Colleges should know how students do on a scale compared to a larger amount of students. If someone just doesn't do well enough, compared to the nation, its their fault. Nobody is stupid. There are some people who don't work hard enough. In addition, losing, while this may seem illogical may boost confidence. When people loose or do not do as well as they hoped, they look forward to further improvement. And that self confidence and ability not to give up is a skill taught by standardized testing. They refuted my third contention by stating that "As my entire contention three says, teachers are often hurt by standardized tests, because it forces them to teach something they aren't used to teaching. "Every teacher is allowed to teach in a different style. It is about what they teach. And the educational guidelines suggest the same thing for every single teacher. At the end, if they want to let teachers teach with completely no restrictions, they are looking to abolish the whole education system which in fact is quite efficient. Its quite clear that the whole education system can not be banned. Teachers must teach information at an appropriate gradient for each class. They refuted my fourth contention by suggesting that " I have done my own part of research. and have found that standardized testing is actually only a quarter of a percent of the total US education budget. The USA spends more than a billion dollars on Standardized Testing ALONE! "A quarter of a percent of the budget. And then, they state that it costs 1 billion. But wait? Doesn't that mean that we make a profit? Then, my opponent goes on mentioning that we can spend this money to fight against ISIS. I would love to help stop ISIS. However, I am not apathetic to education and I am sure that the readers are not either. Next thing my opponent will suggest, is the implementation of child labor. I consider it very important to see what students have learned throughout the year and how productive the teachers have been. They refuted my 5th contention by saying:" Just because a test is "fair", does not mean it is "beneficial". "However, when students think its fair, it is implied that they admit that it is correct and that it is helpful. Students consider these questions fair which proves how not harmful these tests are. They refuted my sixth contention by saying that" Basically, what they are trying to say is that it's okay for a small fraction of students to suicide(STUDENTS! ) because it helps the majority have confidence, which it doesn't necessarily, as I stated in my attack on their case. "However, all my assertions have been proof of how standardized testing is a benefit and how students and professionals see it as a benefit. The small fraction of students have committed suicide. But lets think for a moment. Why is that number so small? Because the students who end their life because of a test are mentally ill and should have consulted a professional. Now onto counter-counter refutations. They rebuilt their point by saying This changes the curriculum, not allowing students to learn other things, such as fine arts. However, fine arts and other activities will still be in the school curriculum. Teachers blatantly will not spend the whole study day to prepare for tests. Fine arts are a required part of each students program. Math and language arts are everywhere. A large portion of the students will engage in professions which will require these two subjects. Many tests also include social studies and science. In part B, my opponent went on about how students will not be able to afford text books. However, students, rich or poor will find a way to get a text book to study if they want. There are public libraries, many schools give out free textbooks and kids can borrow from their peer. Therefore, standardized testing are about how determined one is, not about money. About disorders, many such kids are not given standardized tests. In Contention 2, Part A, they state how one size does not fit all and that does not work. However, there are guidelines for what a teacher should teach to whatever grade. And the teacher should follow those guidelines. Whenever a student is above his grade in a subject, he is technically in a different grade and takes the appropriate level test. In Contention 2 Part B, they state how schools have different curriculums. However, for the school, there are certain guidelines for what students should know in their grade level. The test matches the guidelines. In fourth grade, the test is what the student learned in 4th grade. The same goes for other tests. In Contention 3 Part A, they completely agree with what I am saying. There are guidelines. They would be here even without the test. The test, based on gradients and levels, is a recap of whether these guideline have been fulfilled or not. In standardized testing, the educational program makes a check on whether educational goals have been fulfilled to the needed extent or not. In Contention 3 Part B, they talk about paradox in my speech. Which is fact, has not happened. We never stated that these activities should be eliminated. After all, only a portion of the school day will be spent on prep and education. If one wants to take these courses, they can. And now to rebuild upon my own points. Contention 1- Taking the tests can make something be remembered by the child. Contention 2- Allow the comparison of scores of kids from different districts. Contention 3- Proffesionals and parents support standardized testing. Contention 4- Standardized testing is a huge, indisposable industry. Contention 5- Students consider standardized testing fair and square. Contention 6- Standardized tests raise students confidence.

a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00001-000

First, off, I would like to say that West Coast Starter File does not personally interview people. They take sources from other websites and creates a package to help debaters. Saying I plagiarized from West Coast is false, because they have not provided a link themselves. We provided the source they have given us, making our argument valid. Contention 1 A: Having teachers prepare students for the test causes teaching to the test. This changes the curriculum, not allowing students to learn other things, such as fine arts. When you say that what is on the test is what the students need in life is not always true, as some students are not as interested in math or language arts as others. Contention 1 B: Here is the link I posted ORIGINALLY: "How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated July 2012). " FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. . http://fairtest.org... Also, I am not saying that poorer students will not be able to do well. What I am trying to say is that it is easier for whites, middle, and upper background students to do well, because they have access to better education. It is harder for someone to do well on a test if they do not have to money to buy materials to help them study. However, other students who are richer will be able to afford these books and will therefore have a better chance of doing well. You defined standardized testing as followed: A type of test that has the same questions for every student, depending on age and grade level. It is scored in a manner which allows the results of students to be compared. This means that all students, even the disabled or language learners, will have to take the same test. Colleges will look at these tests, and may not know that these students are disabled or have just moved to the United States. Therefore, the disabled and language learners are not always given an equal chance for success. Contention 2 A- As I stated in my quote, different schools will have different curriculums, and trying to create ONE test to fit for all of these different settings makes it nearly impossible to compare scores. You stated that schools will teach the same thing, but as I stated before, this is generally not true with different teachers and different styles of teaching. Contention 2 B-As my Contention 2A said, different school have different curriculums and even if teachers did teach to the test, which I have already proven to be bad, it would limit the curriculum and students will be worse off if they wanted to learn things other than language arts, math, and science. Contention 3 A-The teachers actually do NOT decide what to teach the students. There is always a guidebook for what to teach at a certain time. These teachers must follow these guidebooks but can teach it their own way. It is not always true that teachers teach what is on the test. As I said in my Contention 2, different school have different curriculums, so making a test to fit all of these different schools is impossible. Contention 3 B- My opponent stated that activities such as art are still required for the student program. However, before, they said that it is good that these activities are taken out because they are not part of standardized tests. But students who wish to take these classes are not given the chance because standardized testing has already squeezed out these activities. Thank you.

27d1c5df-2019-04-18T18:12:10Z-00004-000

I believe that secession should be allowed. First round acceptance and state your position DO NOT ARGUE YET. Please give a witty quote to go with the argument "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000

Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.

31806999-2019-04-18T16:58:21Z-00002-000

sex is the most basic of human needs. Prostitution is good n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

9b3bf6ac-2019-04-18T15:15:26Z-00000-000

Second, You don't get HIV from an environment. "HIV is a virus that infects people by getting inside their blood cells. To avoid getting HIV, you must prevent the blood, semen, vaginal fluids, or breast milk of someone who is infected from entering your body through your mouth, vagina, anus, tip of your penis, or breaks in your skin. " . http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu... Alcohol only has restrictions that high in four to five countries in the world. If you went to Germany you could buy and consume alcohol at the age of sixteen. divorces and friendships, yes they would still exist, but it would increase drastically if we legalized prostitutes. If my wife was a prostitute why would I stay with her while she's out getting screwed by different dudes everyday? It wouldn't decrease the number of under aged teens out there in the middle of the street trying to earn money for themselves or for their families, as they'd still be doing it illegally. Even passing a law with an age limit legalizing prostitution would encourage many teenage girls that it's alright to sell their bodies and to be submissive to old men who want to do bad things with, or to, them. Prostitution would only encourage rape and sexual assault to rise, as it would encourage men, or guys I should say, to go out and find a random girl, pick her up, and say "Oh no sir officer, she's a prostitute. " even when she isn't a prostitute. Again, Thank you for putting up this debate and for putting up great argument points.

9b3bf6ac-2019-04-18T15:15:26Z-00002-000

What you're saying is that if we legalize prostitution then the rate of homicide would drop? That makes little sense. Yes, I agree prostitution has been around for, well forever, but that doesn't mean we should legalize it. The legalizing of prostitution would raise the HIV/AIDS rate, would lead to more divorces, would ruin friendships, and honestly would destroy our nations reputation. Would you like to be known as "The Prostitute Country?" I would not. Prostitution is not a great, or even good, thing and would lead to more rape and such. It is promoting teenage girls to go and be a prostitute to get money in stead of sticking with finishing school and getting a decent job. It would allow, we'll say, a fifty year old man to have sexual intercourse with a sixteen or seventeen year old girl. Tell me, how in the world is that safe or the correct thing to do? I'm not saying teenage girls shouldn't have sex, as it's their choice if they want to or not, but I'm saying having sex with an older man, by like six years older, is too much and is honestly gross. Homicide cases would not decrease after legalizing prostitution, as there would still be girls getting murdered after having sex with a man and then threatening to tell his wife if he wouldn't pay her better or have sex with her regularly. It should stay illegal.

5af37a7e-2019-04-18T14:15:24Z-00000-000

People who have committed serious crimes should not be able to on guns. Others who did stuff like spray painting should be able to own them after a period of time.

6335541e-2019-04-18T14:59:13Z-00002-000

Gay marriage should be legalized because it is uncivilized and unmerited. Our civil rights and the Constitution give us many liberties. One of our civil liberties is the pursuit of happiness, which homosexual people are not allowed to chase. They cannot be married to the person they love and it violates their freedoms. According to professorshouse.com, "In Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, not only is gay marriage banned, but so are civil partnerships." Others might ask why gay marriage should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family together. Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we went to sleep in, meaning gay people are now straight and all straight people are now gay. Do you think the newly straight people would fight for the newly homosexual people"s rights? America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like. After everything straight people have put homosexual people through, in this scenario, homosexual people would most likely vote for their rights because they would want their rights to be voted for. We are equals in this world whether we are Black, White, Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual orientation? The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person"s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God. In a marriage there is one thing that truly matters: love. Yes, other things are important too, but not one couple would make it to even asking someone to marry them if there was not some love. Las Vegas, Nevada is also known for being the place where many weddings occur which are annulled within one week. These marriages are not based off love, but simply a drunken night in Vegas. High divorce rates weaken what a marriage is defined as. Why are we not able to rewrite what a marriage stands for and make it include a homosexual marriage? The definition of love, according to dictionary.com is as follows: "Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion." If gay people feel this way then why shouldn"t they be able to be married? If they are happy with each other, said persons should be able to marry. California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships meaning it is almost a marriage without the matrimony. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples are not entitled to this in most states. Marriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay couples are not able to add each other on. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said person"s spouse is not recognized as their next of kin and care is delayed. Who would be affected if homosexual marriage was legalized? No one. Everyone believes there is one person who is out there to love us. Gay people feel the same way. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage and gay couples cannot have children by themselves, without some type of help, so they look to adoption agencies. In some cases gay couples are put on longer waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks. On the website professorshouse.com it reads, "When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were durable." This is a perfect example of matrimony and what it should be based on. . According to dictionary.com a marriage is, "The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities." If this is a marriage why are gay people not included in this? Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including, Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism same sex preferences are a sin. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children because they cannot procreate on their own. If this is a stand point on making or breaking gay marriage then only people who are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but they believe gay marriage will weaken its institution by leading to high divorce rates. On loveandpride.com I read, "One reason legislatures are denying gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do." Others are fearful for children"s futures and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise children"s mental capacities. Even though to most people gay marriage should be illegal and should stay in its current state, I believe we need to change the world for future generations. We feared that different religions were going to clash, but now all of the religions coexist. White people had Black and Hispanic slaves, but we overcame the odds and now White men, Black men, and Hispanic men can be equals. If it is possible to overcome such fierce obstacles then we can overcome the boundary obstructing gay marriages and straight marriages alike. Gay marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Evolution will always continue and at any given point in time, something will occur that we will not like in this world, but we can overcome this. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the surface. We should take charge of it.

da08f73b-2019-04-18T18:34:59Z-00000-000

Defense of Opponent's Counterclaims: 1. While my opponent did not claim that I relied on anecdotal evidence, it certainly seems to be implied. There seems to be a poisoning of the well, in a certain sense, implanting this idea by its mere mention. While I certainly have included anecdotal evidence, this isn't simply casual observation. When your mechanic tells you what your car's problem is, doesn't his knowledge of his profession allow him a platform to provide insight? But even if you denied me this, I supplied my opponent with particular evidence that supports what I, a professional in the field of education, observe myself [1]. Even a cursory search on Google using the terms "grade inflation" and "grade discrepencies" produces a plethora of data beyond what I have given. And as far as I can tell, the only area where I have provided anecdotal evidence is in the area of purported grade inflation. I think this claim was intended to undercut a solid argument by implanting doubt in readers where none should exist. 2. My opponent claims that I contradicted myself. Perhaps I was unclear, but I wasn't contradictory. My initial statement was not made to emphasize what should be done as a resolution, but what could be done. The whole point was that because SAT scores are in fact objective and quantifiable, you (key word) could come up with some sort of measurable "fix." That doesn't mean the test as a whole is measuring what it should ideally measure, but it does point out that the abolition of the test would leave one objectively blind. 3. My opponent also seems to think that I have failed to address the issue of bias inherent in the SAT. But I have to ask if my opponent is really advocating diversity for diversity's sake? The SAT is not the problem here. The SAT simply measures what colleges want and what schools produce. If someone is qualified to be a lawyer, as lawyers are defined and needed in the United States, they have to pass the bar exam. Is it unfair that I can't be a lawyer because I can't pass the test due to my lack of aspiration to be a lawyer? Is it my fault my family didn't instill in my that desire or that I couldn't afford law school? It's unfortunate, but I still have to pass the bar if I want to be a lawyer, because of what the institution considers professionalism in that field. Now, I sympathize with the plight of the oppressed and the minorities in particular. I agree with my opponent that there is something wrong with a system that measures success and professionalism with such a narrow focus. It's unfortunate that the U.S. in particular is such a self-absorbed nation, that our English only policies prevent our appreciation of and facilitation of multilingual speakers. But this is not a problem with the SAT, it is a problem with the institutions. The SAT will change as the institutions do, which is what my opponent has been citing in his examples of Wake Forest University and other colleges. I think it's great that they are focusing on change. But does sch change really negate the need for objective measures like the SAT? Not at all. Summary of Con: 1. Grade inflation exists [1]. While class rank may still show how good one is comparatively to others in a particular demographic of schools (i.e. suburban, urban, etc), evidence is clear that the quality of student understanding has gone down while grades have gone up. The SAT continues to be an objective means of measurement in an ever-changing school system. 2. Disparities in education abound from birth. Parents who read more to their children raise the chance of their child's success. Families who have a higher socioeconomic status increase their child's chances for success. Families living in nicer communities or who can afford private, college preparatory schools have an unparallelled advantage over the rank and file in society. Does anyone honestly think that the SAT is the problem here? The problem is people don't like what the evidence shows: a huge disparity and bias exist in our society. How do we know this? Because we have objective tests such as the SAT to measure that. Getting rid of the SAT will not cause colleges to lower their standards and magically allow the poor or unfortunate to com streaming into their doors. The problem is an institutional one, not a testing one. I appreciate my opponent's advocacy, but I think it is misguided. 3. Even if the SAT were on equal grounds with numerous other factors, it's objectivity should be treasured. Abolition is not the answer, but rather reform. Because the SAT is objective, we can revise it until we get it to measure what it should be measuring. While we could wait decades to see the graduation rates of minorities, why not get near immediate feedback so we can affect change now, rather than wait until our data will no longer tell us how to react in a socially relevant way? 4. My opponent rightly pointed out that some colleges have gone SAT optional. The problem is, my opponent would like to abolish the SAT without giving it the chance to compete. This is the perfect atmosphere to let the SAT prove itself. If it is accurate, it will survive. If it is not, colleges are businesses, and they will drop the SAT for its uselessness. But to outright abolish it would be to take a chance with the institution that most directly affects the prosperity of our nation. There is no need to abolish the SAT, as the SAT will dissolve itself if it is unworthy. If we reform the institution of education to reshape its goals and ideals, we just may see that happen. But until that time, the SAT will be a beacon that highlights the disparities that need to be highlighted. 5. Finally, my opponent has continued to state the validity of test scores in predicting student success. I have pointed out that this is not he case at all [2]. While it may appear to be as he states, he is not accounting for the grouping that occurs. For instance, if Harvard's average range of SAT scores is 1400-1600, these scores most likely come from non-minority backgrounds (as my opponent would point out their scores would average lower). These scores are indicative of majority, suburban, potentially private schooled kids. What my opponent shows is that if we simply looked at the grades, these 1400-1600 kids would probably have "A's," which in his mind means that anyone with an "A" could survive at Harvard. But the "A" that correlates to a 1400-1600 on an SAT, representative of a child who went through college-prep school, is far different than an "A" from a kid who scores a 1000 in a coal burning, public school in downtown Cleavland. I highlighted this point in my last post when I referenced source [2] and their soccer team example, but I hope this has made it more clear. Conclusion: The SAT is a valid means of measurement, and one of the only objective means whereby we can revise tests, institutions, and make informed decisions. The SAT helps to fight grade inflation, and it helps us to see areas that need reform within the school system. While the SAT does need to be revised along with the institutions it tests and tests for, one must realize that it is merely an evidence of a problem not inherent to the test, but to the educational institution. Therefore, while I agree with my opponent's criticism's of the SAT, this should be a call for evidential, guided reform, which is made possible by the SAT itself. Thank you, Mestari, for your insight and passion for advocacy. I appreciate that, even in our disagreement (I have added a new source for those interested, but please don't pursue it until after voting, as this would be unfair to my opponent. It's a good read if you're honestly interested in pursuing this issue). [1] http://209.189.226.235/stories/022307/schools_20070223038.php [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3]http://www.mindingthecampus.com...

86fcaef8-2019-04-18T12:12:08Z-00000-000

I just realized that my topic was a bit vague. What I should have said was "Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use". While I still disagree with medical uses, I am most passionate about it being legalized for recreational use. I strongly believe it should not be. You were right regarding the THC chemical. I have no problem doing some more research as you requested, but I hope you can respect that I feel there are better ways to handle medical problems than using marijuana. So, with this topic established, how do you feel about legalizing marijuana for recreational use? The way I see it, doing so would greatly endanger communities.

b1868ca6-2019-04-18T14:12:07Z-00004-000

Explain to me why abortion is good and why is it not murder.

5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00002-000

1) Unconstitutional Telling women that they are forced to take birth control if they wish to be sexually active (without having children) is a violation of the ninth amendment, which refers to the rights retained the people. 2) In addition to being a violation of the ninth amendment, the Pro's arguments are a violation of the first amendment.

5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00003-000

I believe that, barring extraneous circumstances (such as health), women who declare they do not want children should find it mandatory to take birth control (specifically of an implant-type) if they wish to be sexually active. The mandatory length of commitment is 1-year and is reevaluated annually. I believe this would greatly reduce accidental pregnancy.

5c3ed51-2019-04-18T19:04:39Z-00002-000

I believe that work places need a certain amount of employees to function. It is the nature of business to try and minimize costs. Without mandated minimum wage the everyday people would flounder as a result of not being payed much at all. Of course without minimum wage they can afford more people but of those people, who could actually pay their bills? People that are better at their jobs will receive more money, whether or not minimum wage is there. Without it they could be working for $.25 an hour, while the corporate leaders make $1,000s a day. I would like to agree on one point, that the minimum wage should be decided annually for each specific place according to the amount of business and profit that business makes. If McDonald's makes $10,000 more then Burger King, for example the minimum wage should be higher for McDonald's then Burger King. I believe that when a business is opened they estimate how much money they will make vs how many employees and consult specialists and see what they think. Once they reach an agreement that business is required to pay each employee X amount for working there. My opponent argues that increase in minimum wage will lead to the defeat, but I would argue that it will motivate businesses to pay their employees what's fair considering the state of the economy and how few families make enough to actually live. Like I've said businesses tend to try and hoard as much money as possible. They need a certain amount of employees. Minimum wage motivates businesses to do what is fair and just for their employees. I hope I made a good round 1 argument and I await my opponent's response.

c095d706-2019-04-18T17:42:30Z-00000-000

You haven't been stuck behind a family with a few kids before have you? They can be just as bad as obese people if not worse. Also I myself have been stuck behind a group of people who just stand their and don't get out of anyone's way and expect everyone to go around them. It's not a supposed reason and I in now way think it's the only way people get obese. But I know a young man who is quite large and it is because of a medical condition he has and the medication he has to take. I think you missed the main point I was making with that statement which was if a law of some sought was passed to fine obese people for taking up to much room on a walk way, then how is it fair to those people who didn't make the choice to be obese but are obese due to a medical condition, even if it is only a small percentage of people who fall into this category. Also if a law of this sought was passed how on earth could it be enforced? The police already have a busy time as it is and have quite more pressing matters to deal with than going up to obese people on walkways and fining them for not walking in a single file line. Obese people have rights like all of us and one of those rights is to freely walk together.

c095d706-2019-04-18T17:42:30Z-00002-000

I will be the first to admit that obese people do cause some congestion problems. But why should these overweight individuals have to be punished for not walking in a single file line when other people are allowed to with no consequences? sure obese people take up more room but so does a family with 3 kids walking side by side, or a group of school kids or a group of everyday less overweight folks. To target those who are obese is unfair and unjust. Also if something was passed to force obese individuals to walk in a single file line where does it stop? just at the obese or will the taking of these peoples free will to walk side by side with a friend or family member just be the beginning to making it a standard form of living to make everyone walk in single file lines so as to ease congestion on our walkways? Also what happens when two obese people are walking side by side and someone tells them to walk single file because they are to fat, and it turns out these two people are obese due to a medical condition they have to live with every single day of their life, how is it fair to those two people to be told that when they never had the chance or choice to be skinnier. Obese people already have to pay for two seats on airplanes isn't that enough? Is it really our right to say "Stop obese people and get in a single file line now or else" no it is not.

fafbf287-2019-04-18T19:20:21Z-00007-000

I first want to thank my opponent for this lovely argument, therefore before I begin this argument, I think I should first post a verse of the Bible: "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver"(1 Corinthian 9:7) First of all my opponent stated that the tithe suppose to be food, not money, that's why Jacob commanded to eat his tithe, but there are also no laws in the Bible against about giving money to the church, I agree, 10% would be some how ridiculous because sometimes I gave my church twice more than 10%, sometimes less, if we according on 1 Corinthian 9:7, you'll see that the Bible actually said give what you decided, if you have no money, you can write a prayer in a scratch of paper and put it in the box, it's find, it's depend on your heart, I don't find that the priest or the pastor will snatch your and punch you just because you didn't tithe. "The tithe of Israel was designed to sustain the Levite priests, who ceased to operate in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. Jews have not tithed since" Also according in the Bible, we got 1 Corinthian 16:1-2 " 1Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." I think it's still reasonable to tithe your church with money, I don't think anybody will have time to bring food to he table, if so, I think when I go to church, I'll bring Pringles to church, it will be enough, right? Hope you'll be satisfied with my argument, this is my first argument, thanks.

124ea5f1-2019-04-18T16:30:33Z-00000-000

As stated in round 1, Pro has the burden of proof. I will attempt to refute his points by breaking them down into three distinct arguments. Marriage should be legalPro argues that marriage is a type of thing that should be available to anyone who wants it, and it is legal in some states. Generally, I am in agreement, and currently marriage is legal in all US states. However, there are some restrictions. In many states you are not allowed to marry a first cousin (1). In ALL US states polygamy is illegal. Just because a “thing” is wanted or desired by some people does not necessarily equate to the notion that it should be legalized. A person may want to have multiple wives, but it may not in the best interest of the state to legalize polygamy. Religious beliefsPro makes the point that, “Most people use religious believes (sic) as an argument against gay marriage”. This may be true, but since I am not (nor intend on) using religious beliefs as part of my argument, this point is merely a straw man (2). LovePro provides us with his opinion that “marriage should be for anyone who loves each other. ” In order for Pro to uphold his burden of proof, he must show why the state should be involved in “love” relationships. Should states legislate boyfriend and girlfriend relationships if the parties are in love? How does the state determine if the parties truly are in love. Should states administer some kind of love test? I agree that love is an important part of marriage, but from a legalization perspective, I do not see the relevancy. SummaryIt does not appear that Pro has upheld his burden of proof. The only real agreement he made on the specific topic of gay marriage related to a straw man argument about religious beliefs. The balance of his arguments merely focused on marriage in general , but he offered no compelling evidence that gay marriage should be legal. Sources1 . http://www.ncsl.org...2 . http://en.wikipedia.org...

770b8b0a-2019-04-18T16:15:10Z-00001-000

1) The point of the debate is to show that establishing policies to help academic success. Two different studies have shown that when implemented, the education gap closed. While the country as a whole may still be lingering behind because there is no nation wide policy that has succeeded because there are many flaws with the nationwide policy. We cannot determined what each school needs, so if it by law each school, or state, set up its own education policy, this gap could be closed. If we can create a program state wide, or individual school-wide, that can help assist children (like tutoring or mandatory counselling) we can address the issues of falling behind and the negative effects of the home life on a child. Social and emotional learning has a huge impact on children and can help improve their learning overall. http://books.google.com... 2) In a perfect world, yes we do not only focus on standardized tests as a way of saying how knowledgeable our children are but unfortunately that is how the grading system in America works. That is why we also have children go into extra curricular activities, and we have teachers write recommendation letters. " A University of California study found that if the University did not require SAT scores from prospective students, they would have to raise their standard high school GPA to unrealistic expectations just to balance out the admissions process." Standardized tests are the same for everyone. They measure the same level of intelligence for everyone. http://astro.temple.edu... 3) I think my government website is a little more reliable than your news website. Many cities as a whole are closing on the achievement gap because they know what is working for their children. As I stated, a statewide, or school wide policy will help take away the educational gap. http://www.startribune.com... "Cincinnati attributes its success to measures, big and small, that ensure its poorest students receive the basics in the classroom and out, including tutoring, mentoring, food and health care. " They receive their money from non-profit businesses. In a decade, their graduation rate went from 50% to 80%. They figured out what works for their children, and if every state did the same, we can close the education achievement gap.

cf3337cd-2019-04-18T17:33:53Z-00006-000

Okay so I shall first specify what exactly this argument is about. I am against homework being in any school system. Instead I feel school should be 8 hours a day and no homework after. In this point of my argument I will use facts and evidence to prove homework is not an asset to the Educational System but instead a pitfall. Now I won't say some homework is bad like what isn't finished in class is taken to be finished at home, but I will say the education system has not done that. Instead they overbear children with 3 or 4+ hours of homework a night. In doing so children lose a great deal on daylight outside, family planned events, sports, and the overall experiences of being a child. ,"too much homework may diminish its effectiveness or even become counterproductive,"writes Cooper in his latest research review [Harris Cooper, The Battle Over Homework, second edition, page 26, and Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of the Research 1987"2003, the Review of Educational Research (Spring 2006)]. Most teachers do not take courses specifically on homework during teacher training. In fact, research shows that the great majority are unaware of the research on the problems with homework [Stephen Aloia,"Teacher Assessment of Homework," Academic Exchange Quarterly (Fall 2003)]. That"s why, as Cooper told the authors of The Case Against Homework, when it comes to homework,"most teachers are winging it." I feel to avoid the situation of what is too much or too little we should merely just lose homework altogether. If children went to school eight hours a day they wouldn't have anything to bring home for homework anyways. Then they have all the time in the world to do as they please, like being children.

63356721-2019-04-18T14:11:32Z-00005-000

Yes, I'm doing another debate. Our gun debates went terrible so...eh, well. I'm a Democrat, you're a Republican, let's see how this go's. Anyway, you see, I think gay marriage should be legal. The bible is a terrible excuse because in the Hindu religion, it describes homosexuality as fine, and nothing to worry about. So if a Christian says, "Well the Bible said-," I don't want to hear it. That could be considered insulting a Hindu. And you can't say, "It's against nature," because if it is, than how come in Antarctica, so many penguins have turned out to be gay, and basically that's happened a lot in nature in general. Also, love is huge part of life, and not being able to celebrate that love just because you love the same sex, (Remember, usually in gay sex the other person also want's to have sex. Gay rape is another issue, and you can't use molesting a child because that child will eventually get scared, and beastiality....the animal never said yes.) you shouldn't have the love of being married taken away, just because of different attractions, and some weird Christians forcing everybody to go by what they believe.

2fff3cb-2019-04-18T19:27:51Z-00007-000

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate ===PRO:=== >>With many people in today's society going online and making friends it is threatening our privacy as we have hackers, perverts and stalkers.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== There are many ways to protect your privacy whilst online. They include: 1) Only accepting people you know as friends 2) Setting your profile to private (only your friends can see it) [On some websites this is built in, such as Facebook] 3) Using a proxy server so your IP address cannot be traced, thus you cannot be tracked. Using the above methods, it is easy top avoid stalkers, hackers and perverts. ===PRO:=== >>With google maps you have no choice to show your house.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== With Google maps, you simply see the area as you would if you were walking down the street. When using Google Earth, you see it as if you were flying. In either circumstances, you have no choice but to show your home. If they were to, however, show the inside of your home, that would be complete violation of privacy. ===PRO:=== >>Also we are not warned about this on tv alot at school and internets can get hacked with wireless especially with social networking sites this is a raising issue.Especially with social networking sites.<< ===REBUTTAL:=== TV is not the only medium of media required for a message to be successfully sent. A quick search of the phrase "Social Networking" on bbc.co.uk showed hundreds of pages in regards to social networking. It would be safe to say most of them contain a safety warning. http://search.bbc.co.uk... Most newspapers have an article in regards to social networking as least once a week. It is clear there are obvious warnings in regards to social networking. I await my opponent response. I would like to thank people for reading. I reserve the right to make further arguments.

de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00004-000

I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later. Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline. Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.

6335c49d-2019-04-18T13:09:00Z-00003-000

I. It's Not A ChoiceFirstly, my opponent uses an article from Wikipedia to justify his claim, whereas I use a professional health website. Think about that when voting. Anyways, my opponent claims that brains don't develop genitalia, so they have no gender. There is a difference between sex and gender. Here are the definitions. Gender - the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). [1]Sex - either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. [2]In other words, they're much different. To make this even simpler, I'll use two examples: me and Caitlyn Jenner. I was born a female, so my sex is female, but I also identify as a woman, so I'm a woman biologically and psychologically. Now for Caitlyn Jenner. She was born a male, so her sex was male. (Unless she got a sex change, but I don't know.) She identifies as a woman, so she's a woman. It's that simple! My opponent gives an example to combat mine about the rest of the world being gay with the following: "Say there were a man who ran around naked, when he is arrested for public nudity, he says 'but what if there were a world where everyone were naked and you prefered to be clothed, but to them that would be being naked to you!'"There is one major difference here; you choose to be naked, while you don't choose who to be sexually attracted to. Here's even more proof.Apparently, genetics, birth order, womb environment, and the mother's immune system, among others, can determine sexuality. [3] II. EqualityFirstly, my opponent gets out unalienable rights wrong, saying that humans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. I don't know if he misunderstood my excerpt or if it's from an unlisted source, but I wanted to point that out. Next, my opponent claims that I'm misinterpreting the definition of liberty, saying that it's the ability to move around freely, not do whatever you want. The ironic thing is that he's misinterpreting me here. Neither of these so called definitions my opponent provides are true. I got my definition from a dictionary, while my opponent used no source to justify his view. To reiterate, I'll post my definition again.Liberty- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [4]By not allowing homosexuals to marry, you're oppressing them from how they want to live their lives with a partner. Civil unions aren't the same thing as marriage either, as they restrict access to the rights that are exclusive to marriage. My opponent then says that a gay person can just go out and find someone of the opposite gender to marry. Again, this relates back to how homosexuality is not a choice. Think about it this way: you're a man who wants to marry a woman. Let's say someone told you that you couldn't do that and that you'd have to marry a man instead. You can't just change who you're attracted to, can you? Then, my opponent makes the claim that gays can't redefine marriage. I'll address this in a later point in which I talk all about this. III. Separation of Church and StateNext, my opponent claims that marriage is a religious institution, but provides no proof of this. I, however, will show why marriage isn't a religious institution. Firstly, marriage licenses are given out by the state, not the church. [5] Why would this be if it really were a religious institution? Secondly, plenty of atheists get married, yet they aren't religious. Why is that? Also, you don't have to be married by a priest. In fact, you can be married by a judge in a courthouse. [6] IV. Adoption IncreaseMy opponent says that you don't need to be married to adopt children. Yes, this is true, but I was arguing that there would be an adoption increase, not an chance to adopt. V. What Is Marriage? My opponent claims that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman and that it was like this in every culture, but again, has no source or proof of this. For an example, he says Egyptian culture, but this isn't true. "Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge)." [7]This proves that there were unions of same-sex couples that resemble a marriage that straight couples would have in history. Also, here's another example of "redefining" marriage. Before it was legalized in 1967, interracial marriage was seen as unnatural marriage. In fact, interracial marriage is more similar to gay marriage than we might think. In fact, almost all the points I made in my opening statements could be made be made with adjustments in information and wording, save separation of church and state. Anyways, when interracial marriage was illegal, it was seen as a sign of an obscene act, but now it's seen by most as perfectly normal. In a way, you could say they redefined marriage but allowing couples of different races to marry. So is interracial marriage a bad thing? VI. Economic BenefitNo offense, but this is one of my opponent's most ridiculous rebuttals I've seen in this round. He claims that unemployment went down because they didn't count people who had been unemployed for over two years and that gay marriages makes people lose jobs, so my opponent is basically blaming gay marriage for making the economy worse. He provides no proof of this, so does this even need to be defended against?Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Best of luck. So long and goodnight!Citations[1]https://www.google.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://time.com...[4]https://www.google.com...[5]http://addictinginfo.org...[6]http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...[7]http://www.randomhistory.com...

16f3dc63-2019-04-18T19:39:33Z-00005-000

During the course of this debate three points will become abundantly clear to the reader. 1. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more healthy for humans. 2. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more humane. 3. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is better for the ecosystem. It is my hope that the reader and my opponent see the clear advantages to vegetarianism as a more reasonable way of life. In his opening statement my opponent makes the claim that vegetarianism doesn't provide humans with enough nutrition, specifically protein. I submit that this claim is patently false. Most foods contain at least some protein. Sources of protein for vegetarians include nuts and seeds, pulses, soya products (tofu, soya milk and textured soya protein such as soya mince), cereals (wheat, oats, and rice). The lack of protein argument is one made up by flesh eaters and is not at all supported by nutritional studies. In fact in relation to human health, studies have shown that vegetarians often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer, and actually tend to have longer life spans. . http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... Vegetarianism is morally superior to the carnivore lifestyle. My opponent makes the claim that it is 'unnatural'. Many of the things that modern humans choose to do with their lives are 'unnatural', but serve to create a better, more humane experience for those around us. For instance much of modern medicine is not at all natural, yet we participate in it because it is more conducive for living a longer life and more empathetic towards other humans. I submit that as humans we have a moral responsibility to maintain the well being of other species around us. All life should be valued, and the practice of slaughtering animals, when there are valid alternatives is simply barbaric and backwards. It is something you would expect from an undereducated society, two thousand years ago, but in this day and age, we should evolve morally to avoid killing other things for our own pleasure. If there are alternatives to meat, then in essence humans are only killing for pleasure, which is similar to watching cock fights, bull fights, dog fights or inflicting pain on animals for entertainment. We all agree that inflicting death and pain on animals for pleasure is morally reprehensible, (I hope), so it is time that we acknowledge what the carnivore lifestyle is TRULY promoting. I will save my third point for round 3. .. . http://search.playlist.com...

16f3dc63-2019-04-18T19:39:33Z-00006-000

Vegatarianism The deffinition: http://en.wikipedia.org... Strict Vegetarianism does not give one all of the nutritional things that humans need to survive. Even with the vegie-burgers and tofu, among other things do not give enough substancial protein to live on. It is also unnatural unnatural, meaning something that does not happen naturally, naturally meaning, found in nature. Yes some animals are herbavores, but humans are omnivores meaning, they are not herbavores, nor carnavores, but they need plant and animal food to survive. Our bodies need both meat and vegtables in order to function properly. Example: Bears are omnivores as well. how often have you seen a bear in noture, not eat fish? Yes it eats berries, as well, as an omnivore should. However, the bear cannot live a very healthy life. Thus humans cannot live a life soley on fruits and vegtables. We as the race of humanity need to live as naturally as we can, thus Vegetarianism is an abomination of our sociaty. I have more arguements but save them for the round 2 of this debate (or round 3 if you prefer)

32e53861-2019-04-18T11:50:42Z-00001-000

The federal government is giving us money to teach children. If the government is giving us money, we should use it to help teach. We have flexibility teaching, as we just have to teach what they tell us to, and we can teach it anyway we want, whenever we want (throughout the year). Also, if you finish with your educational requirements early, then you can teach whatever you want for the rest of the year.

abe4d565-2019-04-18T18:56:29Z-00001-000

Looks like someone got mad because they missed a round.... for one id like to point of you have no sources to back up your number you cannot just pop stuff into your head and type it how about when you use your fancy statistics remember that.P.S I suspect that's a lot of copy and paste. Also people he again never addressed my points, So they still stand. I'm going to ignore your statistic dribble and look at the whole point which is at the end. "10.60 years Lethal injection makes so much more sense then letting them live. They killed someone, they do not deserve to live, and to be kept alive. You know as well as I do that it would be much easier on the criminal to get a life sentence, then to know that he was going to die soon. Murders don't deserve prison "luxuries." " That's a complete hypocritical statement seeing how right now if I were to track down a murderer prove that he was a murderer in court and murder him I would be put in jail for murder. Plus you completely ignore the possibility of an inoccent being convicted and kill by the state it has happens. Wait a minute doesn't that mean the state should kill themselves for murdering the innocent? O wait that dont happen does it they just go oop's im sorry we will try better next time Hmmmm.... is that what you wanna tell their loved ones? I'm sure you don't they fact of the matter is DP is a hypocritical punishment saying don't kill then turning around and killing. Thats nothing more than revenge, pay back not a punishment to show them they did something wrong. Also my opponent even ignores the fact that not all death sentences are for murder, during the red scare two "suspected" communist were killed which wasn't even legitamently proven guilty of being communist as well as being a communist was not a legitament crime. As well as children,mentally retarded have been given DP when they do not fully comprehend their actions. Jury nullification which can be used to convict the innocent by bias jurists for racial or gender discrimination and so on. My opponent really only cares about revenge and his taxes.

a5d6b89f-2019-04-18T12:19:28Z-00000-000

Since my opponent has mostly dropped their position, and it's with a logical position: for some students, homework is good and others it is not. There is good logic in that. My opponent did ask about how students view homework, and this is what I found through a quick search: 65% of students view homework as a waste of time, 50% view homework as being overly challenging or simply too difficult, and 29% of the students believed homework was interesting[5]Now, this may not be able to tell us too much, because this is based on how homework currently is. These numbers would likely change if homework was made in such a way where the students got to have a say over what was involved in the homework. I think teachers should just have a overall guideline on what students need to know, and then the students could then create their own homework that teaches them this topic. This would likely increase the amount of students who would find homework interesting(as it's low) since they would get to have a say in what the assignment is. Thus, to reiterate some things, homework shouldn't be completely elliminated, but it should have input from the students so that the students get to do what they believe is most beneficial for them. We don't all learn things the same way, and that would be most beneficial in my opinion, Maybe some students would choose to go without homework, and I think that is fine.Sources:[5]http://ro.ecu.edu.au...

a5d6b89f-2019-04-18T12:19:28Z-00002-000

I'll offer rebuttals to my opponents arguments now. I'll bold a summarization of their arguments, and then for quotes by my opponent I'll offer in italics.Now, I have another solution to one of the problems my opponent talked about in round 1 regarding the psychological problems of having children cooped up inside most of the day. Another solution, other than lessening homework, would be to assign homework that requires the children to go somewhere. RE: Finland and ranking in Legatum prosperity indexWhere are you getting that Finland assigns no homework? My source suggests they assign an average amount of 2.8 hours of homework a week[2]. Additionally, while one of the countries that score high in the legatum prosperity index have little to no homework, what about all of the other countries? Finland could simply be an anomaly. Additionally, the fact that they do assign some homework definitely doesn't help your cause.Mary C Lamia Ph.D. attempts to put it into perspective, " Most often, what motivates a child to do his or her homework are negative emotions. Negative emotions, like distress, fear, anger, disgust, and shame, will motivate a child to do something to avoid them, or urge a child to do something that will relieve their effects,"I think this problem has to do with homework generally being unenjoyable. To solve this problem, as well as everything you bring up in this same paragraph, each teacher needs to think about the homework they are assigning and how to make it enjoyable. I'm in college now, and the professors here seem to be a lot better at making doing homework enjoyable, in comparison to elementary school teachers, etc. Of course, part of that might be because I'm now an adult and when as a child, you need everything to have a certain child-like fun to it. So, I don't think the solution to this problem is necessarily to get rid of homework, but rather to try to make it more enjoyable, if that's possible.RE: Homework is not in the best interests of childrenI think one way to make it in the best interests of children is to allow the children a voice in education. I actually would support a libertarian socialist means of educating people: which is one in which doesn't have a teacher that tells the children what to do and how to do it, but rather, guides them through possible solutions that they come up with on their own. It would stress on the importance of choice and having a voice in what you get to learn. I personally like the John Dewey organization for education and doing education through his ideas, if you're familiar with them. Children would choose whether or not to have homework, and if they choose to have it, why not have it? You can read more about Dewey's ideas on education here[3][4] Homework robs children of their free time, time that can better be spent on more engaging and fulfilling activities.However, this time is used for something important: for better understanding of a topic or subject. How is someone supposed to learn more about a subject, or grasp it, without practice? If the school system was improved I may be inclined to accept homework, but not without significant modifications to the whole educational system.Yes, the education system needs major reform, as I said. Now, in regards to the calculations you had, 1 hour for necessities, 8 hours for sleep, 1.5 hours for commuting to and from school, 6 hours for school, and 2 hours for homework, you have roughly 5.5 hours of free time on weekdays. The 10-11 hours I mentioned was for weekends. However, I didn't take into account the need for bathing and getting dressed and such. Either way, you can see there is actually a lot of free time still even with homework. No one can deny that homework can be a factor in kids staying up late to take the free time that school has robbed from them.I suppose it might, but homework doesn't usually need to take time away from sleeping. As I pointed out, you should have 5.5 horus of free time on the week days, and then more like 11 hours on the weekend days. If it's taking time out of sleeping, that's because the child is either poor at time management skills, or is spending too much time for free time. Now, I was someone who always got to bed late. I could never explain why until I took a psychology class where we briefly went over how some people's core temperatures peak at a certain time of the day, and fall around the time you're supposed to go to sleep. I am gussing mine peak sometime during the night, for whatever reason, and doesn't fall until late in the night. Due to that, one change I would make for school would be to allow the option of taking night classes in secondary and primary education. Right now, there is literally no option for elementary-high school but to take classes that go from about 9 am to 3 pm. That sucks for us night owls who are biologically made to stay up late. I love college for this other reason: I can take night classes. I'm currently taking night and late afternoon classes only. So, ultimately, I don't think homework needs to be eliminated, but more likely that it should be changed to reflect the interests of the children. Sources:[2] https://qz.com... [3] https://www.lib.uchicago.edu... [4] http://www.gutenberg.org...

68a8ac5-2019-04-18T19:56:46Z-00003-000

Your Argument: The economy doesn't consist of "whether the jobs would be done anyway by Americans. " The fact is, the jobs done by illegals are done better and/or cheaper by illegals. My Response: Illegals do the jobs for a lot less pay because they want whatever they can get and people will not pay them more than they are getting paid. For the statement that the jobs are done better is not true. My dad is a home inspector and has done many inspections regarding construction defects. So many of the construction defects are done by illegal aliens who constructed the house. When natives do the job, they do it right. The reason the natives do it right is they are licensed in that profession. Illegals don't have licenses, they only do the work fast and inefficient. Your Argument: Less than 8% of US prisoners are non citizens, according to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, a rather credible source on the matter. My Response: Can you show me the source you got that information from? Your Argument: Keep in mind that without the drug laws, most of these illegal alien crimes don't occur. The solution then is not to get rid of the illegal aliens but the drug laws. And if all immigration is legalized, guess what? You get a more accurate sample of the potential immigrants, rather than just the ones willing to break laws. My Response: You cannot say without the drug laws, most of the illegal aliens don't commit crimes because we would have to see that. Keep in mind, they broke the law in the first place by crossing the border ILLEGALLY. They need to enter the country like everyone else, LEGALLY. If we legalize all immigration, our country would become like China. Way overpopulated. Your Argument: Your "11 to 15%" crap is the worst sort of statistical lie. You are claiming estimated total murders (way above the ones arrests were made for) as a percentage of ARRESTED murders, rather than a percentage of estimated total murders. In other words, Mac Johnson never took a statistics class, nor a logic one. Considering how arrests naturally skew towards "arrest the brown guy" it would be far more rational for Mac Johnson to estimate that, considering how about 2% of murder arrests are of illegal immigrants (the statistics you put above the mac johnson bit), the actual percentage is EVEN LESS. My Response: Can you show me your source where you got that info from?

f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00003-000

Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.

b6d2bbc8-2019-04-18T17:33:43Z-00002-000

My opponent's case rests on two main points:1. The Electoral College is outdated2. The Electoral College is inacurrateIn the first point, my opponent argues that the Electoral College was created because the average voter would not understand politics. This is not accurate at all - in the first Presidential election, 1790, only "white, male adult property-owners" could vote. It wasn't until 1850 that almost all adult male citizens, even those that owned property, could vote.[1] In other words, it wasn't until 1852 - the 17th presidential election[2] -that the uneducated could not vote for the first. Further, the fact of the matter is voting wasn't even important to begin with. George Washington won the first election in 1788 with only 11,000 popular votes - and that was with no opposition! Four states out of the ten that voted had no popular vote, and another one (Massachusetts) was split between popular and state legislature vote.[3] As I noted in my last argument, it wasn't until 1832 - the 12th Presidential election - that every state except South Carolina (which refused to adopt popular vote until after the Civil War) adopted some form of popular vote.[4]As to the second point, my opponent argues the Electoral College is an inacurrate measure of the nation's votes. He cites the 2000 election, the most notorious, as an example of that. The problem is, 2000 is the only election outside of three 19th-century elections where the Electoral College has failed to follow the popular vote. I also believe my opponent's argument that giving all a state's votes to one candidate is unfair to those that voted to the other, is not very accurate. You could say the same thing about any election - that, for example, those that voted for Congressman B had no impact on the election because Congressman A won, and thus gained the entire office. Despite this, however, I think the Electoral College actually proves its worth here. Rather than requiring a national issue on voting reform,there is nothing stopping statewide initiatives to adopting a proportional representation system. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, split their votes based on congressionial districs as well as statewide vote, and several other states are or have considered it. The fact of the matter is, the Electoral College proves it is much more flexible than any other system here. References:1. http://www.infoplease.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5.

5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00001-000

It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a "rock star" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim "avoiding" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a "franchise" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also inci­dentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net invest­ment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses prop­erty both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for exam­ple, a building in which the foundation’s charita­ble and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance.

5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00003-000

Churches should receive donations tax free. However, this should not exclude them from the various other forms of taxes.(Image via The Washington Post) I. Property TaxChurches are not required to pay property taxes on their land or buildings. A pastor in Weddington NC purchased a $1.4 million mansion in October of 2013. The mansion features 16,000 square feet with 7 ½ bathrooms, according to building permits. The land cost another $325,000, for a total cost of more than $1.7 million. In the year 2013, this luxury home managed to skip out on roughly $344,690.00 (Calculated via http://www.iras.gov.sg...) in property tax.(Picture of pastor's home in Weddington NC. Via WCNC News) II. Sales TaxWhen churches buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. From a $2 box of pencils to a $3,000 big screen television churches are not required to pay one cent. Lets take the television and do the math. At an 8.25% sales tax, the $3,000 television would equal to $247.50. Lets be realistic however, what church only has a television inside of it? Take this time to use your imagination. Think of the average American church, and ponder at how much money in sales tax is being avoided.(Picture of the inside of a church) III. Capital Gains TaxWhen they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. A Mormon mall named the City Creek Center, located in Salt Lake City (2 Billion Dollar Tax Free Project) is one such place that profits from a lack of capital gains tax. It does not take someone with a degree in finance to fathom how much money a super mall like this profits, again tax free. (Picture of City Creek Center) IV. Why these numbers matterThe substantial amount of money that churches across the country avoid via taxes, is mind blowing. A recent study conducted by the Council of Secular Humanism, compiled numbers into an easily readable chart. 72 Billion Dollars a Year in tax exemptions. You could feed 3,600,000,000 starving people a day, or 9,863,013 people for an entire year! Did I mention that is three square meals a day?V. Why churches should pay taxes?To simplify, churches are earning astonishing amounts of money through various flawed tax exemptions. Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious establishments should go unchecked. No, separation of church and state is to protect religious beliefs from governing our politics. Tax exemptions should only be applied to donations to the church.Thank you.

5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00004-000

I accept the challenge. I will pursue the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government.