Datasets:

zeta-alpha-ai

/

NanoTouche2020

like 0

Follow

Zeta Alpha 12

dd2367fa-2019-04-18T19:51:51Z-00003-000

It is very rediculous... Marijuana is much safrer than opiates. People say marijuana will lead to other things, well arn 't those things opiates? Opiates are much more dangerous than marijuana, I am not understanding peoples arguments against medical marijuana.

ea22c804-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00002-000

Before I begin, I would like to note that the Electoral College is a fairly proportional system based on how many electoral votes each state receives- each state has a number of electoral votes based on the number of Senators + Representatives. Because the number of Senators is two for each state and Iowa has 4 representatives, it has 6 total electoral votes, currently. The reason that this is proportional is because the majority of the votes are based on the number of Representatives- which are set to represent the state's districts proportionally. The reason I say "fairly" is because of course, we have gerrymandering which is believed to impact how proportional the districts are and in turn, how proportional the electoral votes are. Here are my points: Age) The Electoral College has been electing the Presidents using the same process/system for over 214 years. It has been only ratified once- around thirty years after its creation. ( Amendment 12) After this ratification, however, we have remained to have the same system. Speaking of Amendment 12, I would like to note how, it only took a couple elections before we realized that the Electoral College had issues in representing the nation, thus we changed it in 1804, with the Amendment. Yet, once again I reiterate how we have not changed it since. The Process) During the first part of the Electoral College Elector selection process, candidates for Elector positions are nominated/ voted on by party members during meetings such as state party conventions. In other words, we the people decide on our electors, assuming each of us belongs and associates with a party during the process. 48 out of 50 states have remained with the same process of selection when it comes to Electors ( winner-take-all system in which the party of the president with the most popular vote in a state is the party of the Electors that are chosen to represent the state in the Electoral vote- essentially, the belief is that the popular vote accurately represents the Electoral vote through the concept of the party matching that of the winner of the popular vote. This belief has been tested before, and while it is true that there have been elections where they DO NOT match like the 2016 Election, these have been rare occurrences.) The winner-take-all-system process is where I would argue that it can actually benefit the Democratic party- as I have stated/ suggested above, the popular vote determines the party that controls the state. So by this logic, the Democratic Party can control the state. However, the one thing to note is that there have been Electors who vote for candidates NOT of their own party or simply a different candidate. In fact, it has been reported that there were 7 Faithless Electors ( those who don't vote for the ones they had pledged- to whom are typically the prominent candidates of their party during the Elections.) The Opinions of the People) According to Gallup, 47% want to keep Electoral College, which has increased by 12% since 2011, when participants of a 2016 poll were asked about their preferred method for electing the president. [1] [1] http://content.gallup.com... What It All Suggests) To me, the age of the system suggests that, we the people of the nation, have not had sufficient reason to replace the system yet, even if we believe there is sufficient reason to argue against it- this is based on the fact that there has been little done to even ratify it nor replace it. The process of the system suggests that we have a lot more to do with the Electoral College, specifically the Electors, than we believe. It also suggests that the popular vote really does match with the Electoral College vote EXCEPT on those rare occurrences. The opinions of the people on the system have fairly obvious suggestions- the pople DO believe it is a sufficient enough system. Overall, the facts- to me- suggest that the Electoral College is sufficient, according to the people. Or, at the very least, it is slowly BECOMING sufficient in the people's minds. This is why I support/ claim my position statement that the current Electoral College system is sufficient. On a separate note, do you happen to have evidence- specifically quotes- for your "Why Democrats and Republicans Agree Change Is Needed" part? I personally have not heard from Republicans about their party being against the popular vote, for example. I am also confused on some your wording if you don't mind clarifying. One notable example I have read is "revenge fantasy." My apologies for this being a bit wordy and if some of this doesn"t not make complete sense. Forgive me for not following your rules there by technically rebutting. Please let me know if something doesn't make sense and I will be glad to clarify. Thanks for the read!

2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00000-000

Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book "To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be ‘double taxation’ indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy."[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: "Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate." Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches "making millions" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com...

2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00001-000

Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] "Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions."For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:■ the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, ■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, ■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, ■ the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: "We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike."[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: "At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large."[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org...

2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00002-000

Assuming Churches count as NPO(non-profit organisations) they should be taxed in the same ways. All other organizations (like corporations, including non-profits) pay taxes on everything, profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, payroll tax. Churches are often a big part of communities in America, they typically use a lot of the communities resources, occupying large areas of land and real estate that they do not have to pay tax on. The amount of property owned by churches is vast compare to any other single co-operation, if the churches were to pay only this tax alone the personal property taxes you and I pay would go down considerably, many tons and cities property tax rates would drop and lets be honest, the government would have a LOT more income. Not only are churches using vast amounts of land they are not paying tax for, they also use the services paid for by tax payers, why is it fair churches get the same treatment by police, fire departments and schools that us ta payers do, when they provide nothing towards it? However you may claim churches to be non-profit, they still collect money and revenue in many forms, donations, events, fund-raisers, trips, selling merchandise (whether they pay sales tax on this I am not sure, I think it may vary church-to-church and depending on the merchandise) at the end of the day, successful churches such as those run by the Baptists and Catholics make millions, many churches in my area have their own gyms, libraries, day cares and swimming pools, they also seem to afford excessive trips and camps. Where does all this money come from and why is none of it going back into the economy? You may claim that it is being put to good use for the churchgoers to use these facilities, but what about atheists like me, or people from non-Christian organisations? Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate. At the end of the day everyone would benefit from Churches paying tax; they are such a huge part of the American society and the gain a lot of revenue (whether they are meant to or not! ) Every other organisation has to claim their earnings, there is no reason churches should be exempt.

c901992b-2019-04-18T16:23:35Z-00002-000

My Arguments 1. Uniforms may increase a student’s self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. [1] Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion". [2] By implementing uniforms confidence is boosted and negative peer pressure is eliminated. Over 75% of schools that implemented school uniforms noticed a drop in peer pressure. [3] 2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the classroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class. 3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side". [4] This togetherness helps to eliminate division among students at the school and reduces bullying; giving a sense of community is beneficial to the mental well being of a student. [5] 4. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus. This helps to make students feel safer at school. School uniforms may also eliminate gang and clique symbols bringing about a feeling of safety and togetherness. Safety is very important when increasing the amount of students who enroll in a school. 5. Bullies like to pick on kids who are lesser than them, and therefore tend to pick on kids who do not wear quality or popular clothes. [6]By implementing school uniforms this problem is solved. School uniforms encourage discipline through neatness, order, and equality among students. [6] 6. School uniforms encourage creative forms of self expression. Since students lose the ability to express themselves in certain ways through the clothes they were, they will be more likely to express themselves through things such as their personality, academic performance, clubs, and sports. It pushes students to put themselves out there. 7. School uniforms reduce violence and student behavioral problems. [7] Long Beach, California District School held a study comparing violence and behavioral problem rates among students before and after uniforms were implemented. In the five years following the implementation of school uniforms there was an 86% drop in violent assaults. Vandalism cases dropped from 1409 to 106. [8] The U. S. Department of Education also found that school crime decreased 36%, sexual offenses decreased 74%, and fights between students dropped 51% after school uniforms were implemented. [13] Almost 80% schools that implemented school uniforms noticed an improvement in student discipline. [9] Schools that implemented school uniforms also showed to have a higher graduation rate and attendance rate than schools without school uniforms. [11] [12] School uniforms have helped improve schools, as emphasized by one study that finds that “various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, eases of going to school, confidence and self-esteem. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assist. “[10] Contentions Controllable Factors vs. Uncontrollable Factors My opponent brings up that since uniform implementation eliminates the bully’s ability to focus on things like your clothes, they may instead bully someone for something they cannot control like their personality or how they look. This is not a problem of school uniforms. The problem rests in the bullies, not uniform implementation. By eliminating free dress, bullies cannot attack someone for a controllable factor, which would be what clothes they wear. Eliminating it has a plethora of other benefits but one is that it beings all students on the same level to eliminate this form of controllable factor bullying. Uncontrollable factor bullying however, can never be stopped. That sort of bullying would mean that bullies will always find a way to bully someone, even if all controllable factors are eliminated. At this point, the problem rests in the bullies and not by any other external means. If bullying gets that bad it is up to the school to put a stop to it the central problem, which again would be the bullies and not any external factor that may be a victim to bullying. Takes Away Creativity This is a small price to pay for the plethora of benefits that uniforms create. In addition, by implementing uniforms students are forced to be able to express themselves in different ways, whether it be through personality, clubs, or other things. In addition, private schools gain no benefit from allowing students free dress, but they do benefit from having students wear uniforms. [1] . http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... [2] . http://www.eduguide.org... [3] . https://www.dickies.com... [4]. http://www.greatschools.org... [5]. http://www.frenchtoast.com... [6] . http://www.parenting.org... [7]. http://www.calvaryschoolkc.com... [8] . http://www.davidsonacademy.com... [9] . http://www.buzzle.com... [10] . http://www.unr.edu... [11] . http://www.19actionnews.com... [12] . http://www.uh.edu... [13] . http://www.psmag.com...

5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00002-000

Society should restrict the sale and play of violent video games because children become desensitized to violence and its impact. If children are exposed to violence through media, such as violent video games. When children see violent acts in society they equate it with the non-personal response of a video game. Then those children become a danger to themselves. As children have no real picture of the devastating effects of violence in reality. The violence of video games often down plays violence. So to the child it is not very huge. Which is a major concern. It is a major concern because some children may try to emulate the violence seen in video games, thus causing harm to either themselves or others. Final thought violent video games cause violent behavior and violent acts. Below I have posted a link to better support my argument. . http://www.sciencedirect.com...

c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000

It should be aloud in school so children will have better discipline and pay attention more. Studies show that since corporal punishment was banned discipline in children has gone dramatically down.

c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000

Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.

13176601-2019-04-18T17:19:14Z-00005-000

I believe it is a combination. Many are born that way and others choose to be that way. Those that are born that way were an accident of nature. The same as many other deformity's like being born with one arm, blindness, etc. If you love someone you try to mend their handicap, not accept it as normal. Those that choose it are just sick.

843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00000-000

Clarifications: Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win. I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia. Moving on, we'll discuss the word "homosexual" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender. Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands. Also, Con says I dropped his argument "As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice." I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all." I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention. In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void. 4. Sedation Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them. Arguments: 1. Rape Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that "Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence. For instance, if I say "Pitching a perfect game is possible" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word "situationally" which clearly an act of rape is. 2. Being Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them. Counter-Examples: Extend my arguments. Conclusion: This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions). I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no "alcoholic gene" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...

843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000

Clarifications: My opponent denies the MEDICAL DEFINITION of homosexuality in favor of the *Wikipedia* definition. Clearly the proper medical definition should prevail in this debate; the only reason Con refuses to accept it is because he cannot win this debate unless the definition is skewed in his favor. The purpose of the debate is to affirm or negate the resolution. Both the instigator and contender should give definitions that are applicable to the resolution. The audience should decide which one is the proper term. Again, Con's explanation is from Wikipedia; mine is from the medical community. Moreover, this debate isn't so much about homosexuality as it is about being gay (homosexual). So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as the romantic or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual merely means possessing those feelings - or being inclined to possess those feelings - not necessarily acting on them. So, one might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. without ever having sex; it's all about how your brain is wired to act (what it is built to respond to). Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con begins, "Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all." That is completely false. If there is a gay gene (which many scientists agree there is), it means that infants are born gay -- that is, predisposed to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexuality. In fact, as my sources have pointed out (which Con did not negate at all), scientists have now discovered various links and patterns related to homosexuality that explains why the "gay gene" can and does get passed on and to whom. Further, "Sexual health is more than the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender and function of the human body is the foundation of identity. The awareness of the sexual self as an integrated aspect of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body" [1]. So, here we can see that Con's contention that infants are without sexuality is blatantly false, and my notion that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?" In other words, Con is saying that if one is not having sex with anyone, then one does not have a sexuality... so they aren't gay or straight. Again, that is incredibly FALSE. Ladies and gentlemen, you only have to consider your own sexuality to determine the validity of this statement. Before you ever had sex (or for those of you who are still virgins) -- don't you know what sexuality you are? Don't you know which sex or gender you're attracted to and would like to have sex with? If so, you're acknowledging that one can absolutely be considered gay or straight before they ever have sex, or even if they deny themselves sex or choose not to have sex. Con asks, "Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual?" Even using Con's completely flawed definition of homosexuality -- having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex -- we can see how obviously someone who is living in seclusion can still be gay! It only requires having romantic or SEXUAL ATTRACTION to someone of the same sex. That "someone" can be a celebrity, porn star or even fictional person that one masturbates to. The point is: even in seclusion, one can still have sexual attractions or thoughts. If it's for someone of the same sex/gender, then they're gay by both Pro's and Con's presented definitions. Con's argument fails. 4. Sedation Con writes, "Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place." Again, this is completely FALSE. I've already explained and proven via scientific data that sexuality is most definitely linked to genetics and other biological factors. This is common sense and information learned in every 8th grade health class. Your brain and bodily functions are responsible for sexual attraction and intercourse. We have a reproductive system for a reason; that system is led by none other than the brain. Also, I don't understand why Con's neglecting my example of someone having sex while sedated. Fortunately it's not a major part of my case. Anyway, further proof: Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality [2]. Arguments: 1. Rape When presented with my example of rape (which fits the parameters of Con's flawed definition), Con's only response was, "As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution." Fellow debaters, please consider the debates you have read and participated in here on DDO. Is that a true statement? Absolutely not. A resolution is general, yes, but rare examples can absolutely be used as evidence for either side. Furthermore, rape is not as rare or extreme as my opponent would like you to believe; 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are sexually abused per year [3]. 2. Being Once again, even if someone commits suicide before having gay sex, they are still gay beings (they may simply not be sexually active gay beings, the same way heterosexuals can be straight but not sexually active). As such, if one commits suicide to prevent themselves from being gay, they're still gay before committing the suicide. Again, the only way Con can win this point is to prove that homosexuality is not genetic or determinant on any biological factors. Of course this is impossible to prove and as such my point stands. 3. Biology The point of this contention was to prove how homosexuality is linked to biology and as such it affirms all of my others points. Counter-Examples: Being Pro or Con is irrelevant. Each side has an equal burden of proof. Con says that he only needs one counter-example to disprove the resolution, which he has given in terms of suicide and sedation. Why should Con's extreme examples be considered but my more common example of rape should not? That is a double standard certainly not supported by any debate etiquette or paradigms; Con's simply trying to help further his failed position. Nevertheless, the resolution is entirely true. Conclusion: Medical evidence supports the theory that people are born predisposed to homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex). Before one acknowledges their sexual identity, they are still privy to their sexuality -- they are simply unaware of it yet or not yet biologically inclined towards sex. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Just because one might be a virgin, secluded or sedated does not mean that they are not gay; it just means that they're not having gay sex. While secluded, one may very well still have gay feelings (which even supports Con's definition). If one chooses death, they may very well choose to cease being gay; however, cannot deter from the fact that they were gay up until the time they were dead. So, if an individual is gay for *any moment in time* I argue that it is not their choice. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.ejhs.org... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3] http://www.rainn.org...

843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00003-000

Again, thanks for accepting. Firstly, I shall reject my opponent's rejection of my own definition for this debate. My definition was introduced first, and by accepting this debate, my opponent should have also accepted the defitions, as detailed in this debate I had earlier [1]. There is no good reason as to why my opponent's definition would trump my own. As for the science of it, while sexuality may be linked to the brain, the brain is merely one thing among many. Whether or not the brain is the only factor is yet to be seen, as choice has not been entirely ruled out. Now, onto the points I made last round: 2-. Suicide Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all. They do not ever have "the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex." Their brains aren't developed enough to do such things. Therefore, infants are completely irrelevant to this debate. They would not develop into homosexuals until much later. Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child. However, young children have suicided [2], likely before developing sexual behavior or attraction, so given that they have the option of death before ever being homosexual, this point remains. 3-. Living in Seclusion How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with? My opponent's virgin analogy apparently assumes the virgin to actually live with other people, as opposed to the hypothetical secluded person. Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual"? 4-. Sedation Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place. Finally, having sexual intercourse while sedated is merely one rare event that my opponent cannot possibly use to affirm a conjecture. Counterexamples are only acceptable in negating a conjecture. 1+. Rape As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution, as outlined above. For the random addition about death, the non-living entity is not gay, and is still relevant, due to having made the permanent choice not to be gay. 2+. Being These actions can be taken before sexuality develops, as I have outlined. 3+. Biology Why does this contention even exist? It is just a counter-contention to a contention that was never introduced. Conclusion: Infants are not gay, but may become gay around puberty, so future gays are not present gays. Parents have the choice of not allowing their child to have any chance of being gay in the future. Death and sedation can be chosen before sexuality develops. Counterexamples: I would like to point out that as I am CON, I am the one who only needs one counter-example (such as abortion, killing the child before its neurology develops [3], or abandoning a child in the woods to grow up in seclusion with no sexuality whatsoever) to negate the resolution. My opponent's few examples that could potentially show the resolution to be true in certain instances are irrelevant, as PRO needs to show the resolution to be entirely true. For example, in this debate [3], CON pointed out counterexamples, so that should the net result be that the end result was the resoltuion being sometimes true and sometimes false, Arguments would go to CON. With that said, I'll leave the floor to PRO. 1. http://www.Debate.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.debate.org...

843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00005-000

Gay - homosexual - having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or as an enduring disposition http://en.wikipedia.org... Choice - the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action http://en.wikipedia.org... I contend that being gay is a choice on behalf of the person whose sexuality is being questioned. There are at least two choices that we can guarantee for people who feel as if they have no choice in the matter: 1. Be gay. 2. Suicide. A dead person has no attractions to anyone, and is therefore not gay. Additional choices: 3. Live in seclusion. A person living in total seclusion can no longer be gay, as there are no longer any people to have an attraction towards. 4. Be sedated. While sedated, a person has no consciousness, and cannot have any relationship with anyone. With these three choices to be considered, I leave the floor to my opponent. Thank you for accepting.

f48cd399-2019-04-18T12:36:14Z-00002-000

The fact that anybody would want the gov. to regulate the quality of water is insanity. The U.S. gov. has made enough mistakes already and this doesn't need to add to the list. All they would do is screw it up, currently water quality is decided by the state, but if the gov. would take over full control they would first off be overwhelmed. Also every state is different, you cant have the same regulations in CA as you do in PA, but the gov. would most likely just blanket all regulations under one. Also everyone has a different idea of water quality. There is an 8$ bottle of water that is black with dirt but its considered "healthy". Listen everyone is different so if the people are ok with drinking sh** then I have no problem with it. (If you have any other aruements in the con of this topic please let me know!)

1d0c6377-2019-04-18T19:55:34Z-00005-000

Though I agree with Abortion I do not agree that it should be used as a form of birth control. If some idiot teenager forgets to use a condom they should not have the option of abortion. They can keep it or give it away. Now if a woman is raped or there are special circumstances then it should be an option. I know I am straddling the fence on this issue but this is how I see it. I believe in using abortion responsibly. Every life is precious so we should be thoughtful of how we treat it.

5a57223d-2019-04-18T11:54:56Z-00001-000

Vaccinations are a scam, cause Autism, and all sorts of other negative consequences. It is mean to do this to a child who has no say in the matter and he/she could die from it. It's a eugenics program, aimed at killing people slowly.

3d2c9c3b-2019-04-18T20:02:22Z-00002-000

A pleasant afternoon Mr. Debater Sir..As we know we are now facing on the motion that Prostitution should be banned...and as the leader of the opposition I agree to your definition but I don't like your argument...As we can clearly see Mr. Debater Sir you don't even set the parameters of this debate...Sir as the Leader of the Opposition I would like to rebut your one and only argument Sir...First sir when you say that it is unlawful...NO sir actually it's not when we legalize prostitution on this country...sir we don't really need to ban prostitution because at the first place it's not legalized yet...Thank you sir and good day...

27ac2998-2019-04-18T19:18:37Z-00004-000

A lot of people believe that Facebook brings more stress into one's life and is bad, etc. I am against this. I believe Facebook is a wonderful way to reconnect with people from your past, express yourself, and just have fun! I will let me opponent begin the real argument though. Thank you!

70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00006-000

I accept this debate and will be arguing against the resolution that mankind is the main cause of global warming. The main thrust of my argument will be thus: that although mankind may (or may not be) a contributor to global warming, he is by no means thee main cause of it. I look forward to this debate. Thanks

70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00007-000

You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be debating whether global warming exists or not. It will be assumed that it does.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.[4]Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics or trolling.3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate, and character limits must not be broken. Sources may be posted in an outside link.4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's argumentsRound 4: Defending your arguments and conclusions (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...

f1173c1a-2019-04-18T17:52:03Z-00007-000

First I would like to say that I am neither against or for gay or lesbian rights. All I think is churches should be excluded from any laws made.

a06c77c-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00001-000

The voting age is a tender topic that at the moment, isn't exactly what many would call a problem, so why mess with that now. Many kids and others look forward for the right to vote that now at this moment in our country is a right that we shouldn't tamper with.

fa5121ba-2019-04-18T17:45:03Z-00002-000

Wow. Just... wow. Anyway...1. Right v. EntitlementThe main issue here is my partner is mistaking "Right" for "Entitlement".Right - A just claim.Entitlement - The right to guaranteed benefits under a government program.(Random House Dictionary, 2013)My opponent is trying to say that people are not entitled to water, which claim has some validity. However, people are right to have water.Allow me to explain using the Unalienable Rights from the Social Contract Theory as an example. These rights are rights that we believe should not be taken away from any individual under any circumstances. They are, of course, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These aren't things the government provide us with, they're simply things that can't be taken away by the government.Therefore, while my opponent has proved that we aren't entitled to water, he has given no reasonable argument that we don't have the right to it.He may argue that some people don't currently have water and we don't have to give water to them simply because it is a right. However, this is again, where he should use the word "entitlement". Some people don't have life. It's not up to us to give life to the dead, we just can't take life away from the living.The unalienable right to life brings me to my second point.2. The Right To Water = The Right To LifeAccording to the Social Contract Theory, all humans have the right to live. Our own common sense tells us that we need water to live. Because we need water to live, if water is not being provided to us, then neither is our right to life.Now for this point, it may seem like I used the word "entitlement" as a substitute for the word "right", because water would have to be provided. But in this situation, with it being wrong to take away someone's life, If someone does not give them water when they have water to spare and when the person in need is dying of thirst, that person is negligently taking away one's right to live.With that, my opponent admitted that people have a right to live. An because people have the right to live, by my argument stated above, people also indirectly have the right to water....and finally, the obvious.3. My Opponent's Case is AbusiveMy partner cleverly chose not to explain what he meant by "the right to water" in the first round when clearly he displayed in the second round that he was capable of doing so.As such, I showed the capability of countering his argument. However, playing the card he played is a troll strategy used by novice debaters who so desperately need a win and will attempt to do so by tricking an opponent into thinking a debate he created would be easy.I of course would not have posted this argument if he would have simply defined the resolution in his opening statement. However, by attempting to use deception as a cheap way of winning a debate, he now only has one more argument on his hands. Moral: this strategy is counterproductive. Hope this was informative!

fa5121ba-2019-04-18T17:45:03Z-00005-000

Thanks to whoever accepts this, I say that humans do not have the right to water, I will elaborate later on. One is just acceptance.

ed146d2b-2019-04-18T18:30:30Z-00003-000

Point 1: Some taxes are justifiable and needed, but the current tax rates are terrible. The taxes we pay for public services with should come from the individual State and not the Country because the public services come from the State, so you would be paying for other's peoples' public services. And the taxes we pay for our social programs and our safety net should be almost completely eliminated. I believe in cutting taxes and spending. Not one or the other. And we should have our own safety net instead of relying on the Government to do that for us. And taxes do not improve overall standard of living because whatever you get out of taxes, you are still paying for it. The Wealthy have no moral obligation or duty to give back to the other people because they fund their life by providing high quality and low price goods. Point 2: Lowering taxes for the individual frees up money so that he or she can buy something and feel comfortable about it with no later regrets. And all of the Bush deficit talk was just Clinton's policies taking into effect. After 2003, the deficits decreased significantly. The rich not only invest in stocks and securities, but they buy multi-million dollar cars, houses, yachts, and much more. And a lot of that money they re-invest back into the business becuase it will make them more money. That is the one good thing about greed. It keeps business alive. And if the rich received tax cuts, they could either countribue to GDP by buying a big-ticket item or go invest in his or her business(s) which will help them by getting them more money, help the workers by having better working conditions, salaries, and a reduced risk of being laid off, and helps the consumer buy letting him or her have a high quality good at a lower price, which is very appealing in bad economic times. And again, it is not the Government's job to institute Social Programs or to build safety nets. Point 3: Like I said, you can use the sales tax during inflation. That would lower GDP, thus curbing inflation. I guess drop this tax. Point 4: I am not saying you should end Social Security, I said that it should be privatized (for businesses), and even then, it should be the employee's choice. And the businesses offering social security would not give it up because one, it does not waste their money, and two, makes sure their employees live a good life (yes, businesses care about their employees). Privatized Social Security would not only decrease taxes, reduce the deficit, and reduce Government aspending, but it would benefit the employees better than National Social Security because they can opt out when they are in a difficult financial situation and need money. Point 5: The property taxes penalize people with a lot of land. Poor or rich. A poor farmer with the same land as a billionaire would be paying the same in property taxes. It reduces agricultural yield. And the estate taxes (or inheritance taxes) are unnecessary for the same reason because they affect the poor and rich because all people inherit. And I said inheritance taxes, not estate taxeds. All pay taxes for inheritance. Point 6: If they are sold underground, by nature they are not paying taxes because that is the definition of underground selling. And excise taxes do not reduce likeihood that people engage in dangerous/poor behaviors because most of these behaviors are addictive, and they will buy the product no matter the price. And why do you think they repealed prohibition? Because prohibiting dangerous materials of that nature (not hard drugs, like alcohol or smoking) should not be prohibited or penalized by the Government. That is not their job, and they should not because it is unconstitutional. Point 7: It's not the tax cuts, it's the market speculation and Obama. The tax cuts again by nature free up money for businesses because they have more to spend. If their amount of money is over their current safety net, they will expand. There is a constant point on the safety net. It is not forever. When they expand, by nature again, they build more businesses, thus increasing GDP, hire more, this reducing unemployment and increasing GDP (because they have more money to spend), and it encourages more companies to do things like that, thus making a meaningful difference in the economy. And like you said, if the tax code was more efficient, it would increase foreign investment. Point 8: The current energy sources are fossil fuels, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that renewable energy is a lot less effective than fossil fuels. We should not be in a rush to move to renewable energy sources because it will cause a crushing recession and will slow travel down by over 95%, thus making the economy even worse. And the rich already pay more than their fair share in taxes, and the poor pay less than their fair share in taxes. Point 9: If the Government would reduce spending (which it needs to do), the current tax system would be outdated. And that quote you gave that said that the rich pay less taxes than the middle class is impossible because the current tax rates say otherwise. Contra: Sorry if this was a semi-lousy argument with no sources. I have a slight fever and forgot about my debates until it was almost too late. I will make my argument better and have a lot more sources for the next round.

d9814b0e-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00001-000

Producing a flu vaccine doesn't have too much of a point. There are many strains of the flu and it mutates quickly. The actual flu vaccine is actually several flu vaccines for the strains that are believe to be the most likely to emerge that season. The flu strains that weren't predicted for the season will not be affected by the flu vaccine and thus can still make people sick and in severe cases kill. There is also the problems that the flu constantly mutates which further makes the vaccine less effective. Effectively I would rather have groups researching ways to treat the flu in general rather than trying to get everyone to get a vaccine every year. I would have to agree that in most situations, vaccines outweigh the negatives. But for some people, the negatives don't outweigh the positives, especially when they have had complications with other vaccines. An example of one such person Nancy Jaax, worked at a Biosafety Lab. To work in a biosafety level three you needed to be vaccinated for everything in the lab. Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into bio safety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures.

a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00003-000

Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.

a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00005-000

To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's "forgiveness" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.

d9e8f6e2-2019-04-18T19:03:35Z-00005-000

I believe gay marriage should be legal. The fact of denying happiness to human being IN THIS CASE is unacceptable.

36da2186-2019-04-18T14:57:30Z-00003-000

Thank you for acceptingC1: Rightfully Palestinian landhttp://www.itisapartheid.org..."The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known by the Israelis predominantly as the War of Independence and War of Liberation and by Palestinians as the Catastrophe (Arabic: al Nakba), resulted in a land grab by Israel, which expropriated considerably more land than had been apportioned to it under the partition. While in 1945, 85% of arable land in Palestine had belonged to Arabs, by 1949, only 6% of the land was occupied by Arabs. Israelis used to claim that the Palestinians left their properties on their own accord, but historians now generally agree that the Palestinians were expelled.""Current estimates put the Palestinian refugee count at 6 million people. Some of these reside in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Since 1948, the World Community has recognized the Right of Return to Palestine under the U.N. Resolution 194.However, Israel has created its own laws concerning the Right of Return with convoluted residency laws, making it impossible to return to lands owned for hundreds of generations by indigenous Palestinians. One example is the prevention of Eastern Jerusalem residents to return to Jerusalem if out of the country for more than seven years-even if as a refugee due to deportation or land confiscation. "The Palestinians have been living on the land for thousands of years, and all of the sudden the Israelis kick them out. Now there are 6 million Palestinian refugees without a home.C2: Israel apartheidAccording to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid by the UN in 1973, apartheid is acts "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." By this definition, it is clear that apartheid and segregation are happening against Palestinians in Israel. http://www.itisapartheid.org..."Palestinians are under Military Law and face the constant threat of arrest and detention without charge and can be held indefinitely. They have no right to representation or trial. Israelis living in illegal settlements on Palestinian land have all the privileges of Israeli Civil Law. As citizens of Israel, they can vote, seek redress in court, and have freedom of speech and assembly. 2 Palestinian villages and towns face collective punishment in the form of bulldozing of family houses, extended 24 hour curfews, closures, military raids, violence and harassment. Israeli settlers face no such collective punishment. 3 Palestinian land ownership (agricultural and residential) is subject to military and economic confiscation. The purpose is to establish Jewish only settlements, take water resources and confine the Palestinian population into smaller and smaller cantons.Israelis face no land confiscation. 4 Over 17,000 Palestinian houses have been demolished, creating 100,000 of thousands homeless. Over a million Palestinian olive and fruit trees have been uprooted. A few Israeli outposts have been dismantled, but there has been no widespread destruction ofIsraeli homes and trees. 5 Palestinians are prohibited from using the extensive network of settler only highways that connect the settlements to Israel. 8 The Israeli military authority controls virtually all the water in the West Bank. 73% of West Bank water is piped back to Israel. Illegal Jewish settlers use 10% of West Bank water.Palestinians have access to only 17% of their own water and must buy it from Isrrael at 4 times the price Israelis pay. 9 The wall fragments Palestinian communities; it separates families from their land, their livelihood, health care and schools. The wall also divides communities and families from each other. The wall does not fragment Israeli settlements; it is built in such a way to as to annex them to Israel proper." This source CLEARLY states Israel oppression against the Palestinian people. Israel has demolished all their homes and takes away their basic needs, not being able to have access to their water or being held under military law.https://www.popularresistance.org...Some great pictures on this: http://www.seamac.org... "Four million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories lack the right to vote for the government that controls their lives through a military occupation. In addition to controlling the borders, air space, water, tax revenues, and other vital matters pertaining to the Occupied Territories, Israel alone issues the identity cards that determine the ability of Palestinians to work and their freedom of movement." "In 2008, the South African government commissioned a study by leading legal scholars and human rights experts to determine if Israel was practicing apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the parameters of international law. After a 15-month investigation, the study concluded that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.” "Contention 3: Benefits to Israelhttp://www.foreignaffairs.com..."But the potential benefits of supporting the resolution far outweigh the perils. If Israel manages to garner solid international support by backing the Palestinian UN resolution, it may induce the Palestinians to return to negotiations. This would improve Israel’s international status, give it more diplomatic space to maneuver through the chaos in the Middle East, and allow it to shore up its security needs. Most important, the above proposal may be the only way to preserve the idea of achieving peace through bilateral negotiations. By reaching a compromise with the Palestinian leadership over the UN resolution, Israel can halt the dangerous precedent of unilateral action for conflict resolution and instead preserve the principle of achieving a two-state solution through direct talks, a notion critical to Israel’s future. Such a concerted move would prevent a violent confrontation, give the Palestinians the dignity they seek, allow the parties to relaunch negotiations, and win Israel international favor while preserving its security needs. Now is the time not for prudence but for audacity."If Israel allowed Palestine to become COMPLETELY independent (they are not now as Israel still controls everything unfairly), there would be less violence overall in the Middle East as less terrorists would target Israel.Overall, Palestine deserves independence. Thank you.

c4415da9-2019-04-18T14:33:48Z-00005-000

One source predicts that one third of the jobs will be replaced by robots by 2025 [1]. It is almost undoubted that machines are capable of taking over human jobs. Artificial intelligence has improved and it may reach the level of human intelligence soon. Baxter the robot is capable of doing variety of jobs. It can still be developed and advanced. It operates tasks around 1/10 of a speed of a human would. Although it doesn't function as fast as a human would, the cost of operation is much more smaller than the minimum wage. ($8 per hour compared to few cents for electricity) With correct programming, machines would be more reliable, efficient than humans and will take over many human jobs since the Free Market says so. (assuming that all people are rational and would try to go for as much economic gains as possible) And Many people would be unemployed. Jobs such as telemarketers, cashiers, taxi drivers, bookkeepers, writers, journalists, and umpires are most likely going to by automated in 20 years. [2] There are millions of people working in these fields, so it is not an individual problem. Without jobs, the unemployed are not able to make money. The rich would get richer, and the poor would get more poor. Although technology will have improved in the future, not all people will receive benefits from the advances because they would not have enough money. (free market economy predicts that people go for the most financial gains) So who should solve this problem.....? It is the government. The (recent) government was created so people would face no or little inequality It is the government's job to give people natural rights. It is the government's job so that people in the worst situations still would have a decent standard of living. It is the government's job to prevent any inequalities that may happen. It is the government's job to achieve the highest standard of living for ALL citizens. Socialism can provide a solution to the wealth disparity that may happen in the future. Wealth redistribution will guarantee that all citizens will receive enough basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, for survival. (As long as there are enough resources, and there is and will most likely will be due to the Agricultural Revolution) There will be more resources in the future with technological advances. Capitalism will likely thwart all citizens from benefiting from the technological advances (with growing wealth disparity). Socialism can prevent this problem and therefore governments should switch from capitalism to socialism in the future. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2] http://www.npr.org...

658f60f4-2019-04-18T15:32:42Z-00000-000

Since my opponent provided absolutely no arguments, I can only see a ballot in my favor. Thank you.

ea8c69c3-2019-04-18T11:12:29Z-00000-000

With all due respect, I feel like I am debating Donald Trump here. . :D (take it lightly, Sir). I have given evidence clearly before this round. My opponent's stance that the UK banned guns is wrong. The UK never banned them. In fact, I don't quite understand why my opponent keeps getting back to this issue of banning guns - Australia never did so either. Also, As for his stance on illegal smuggling of guns, I shall say this conclusively given this is the final round - just because of fear of it being brought in from our borders, We cannot have a law that does not ban guns. Simply put, Fear of smuggling should never lead to the dismantling of laws. Borders are meant to be protected, And we must trust the people best suited for that. You spoke of a wall - do you think that the House is full of idiots that wouldn't support it? Do you think this shutdown over the wall was a joke? Imagine not getting your paycheck when you live on these - the Air Traffic Controllers didn't get their salaries, TSA officers didn't get theirs, The government was shut down, Over the whim of building a huge wall, And getting Mexico to pay for it. What beats me is that this is America we're talking about. My opponent has told us that fewer guns result in more crime - while I have seen evidence for this, Is he suggesting we loosen already existent gun laws? Remember, Throughout this debate I have vocal over the need for gun control - I am Pro here. Based on such statistics, It's incorrect to think that freer rules would result in less crime. Imagine, If the laws weren't so tough on defaulters, What cause would keep them from committing crime again? We need tough laws against guns, I repeat myself, GUN CONTROL IS THE WAY FORWARD. I believe that my opponent has based on his argument on the understanding that tough laws will only provoke criminals to find ways to bend the laws for them. What about robberies? We have laws against theft. In reality, Rates of theft have reduced considerably. Yet if we take your argument, A house should be broken into every week. The fact is, And I say this again, Our laws should never be borne of fear. We have the police, We have law enforcement, We must trust that the law is, To whatever possible extent, Maintained. Our Constitution cannot be edited on whims, I hope that's very clear. Kids have, I have said before, Minds that can be very easily influenced. Think of this - a kid watches a cartoon where the hero comes out of nowhere, And shoots dead a criminal. His dad owns a gun, And due to most laws in states, Is permitted to hold the gun in public. Wouldn't the kid be tempted to emulate that great hero? Only that, In the real world, That's a criminal offence. Then again, Do kids even what that means. I apologize for that parable - this is a very serious debate on which the future of the US and the world hinges. But I believe that one must tackle ignorance or false claims by such means. I conclude by repeating my stance. I am pro gun control. I support tough laws that ensure that possession of guns is strictly regulated. I believe we must place trust in the law, And not base that law on mere whims. I believe that a lesser number of guns everywhere is better for the future - we don't want a society that was brought up seeing the gun and the violence it can cause - that just spells disaster.

ea8c07ad-2019-04-18T13:04:12Z-00007-000

Gun control in a broad sense does not work. The common argument from the left is that stricter gun control will result in fewer people being killed by guns, and fewer mass shootings will occur. The argument from the right is that disarming law-abiding citizens won"t stop the crazies from killing, and we have a right to protect ourselves from anyone wishing us harm. So, who has history and facts on their side? The United States has the least strict gun control laws in the world. We also have the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Approximately 30-35% of households in the United States own a gun, and if you add up all the guns there are approximately 1.2 guns per person. Now the scary part, what is our homicide rate here in the land of the free? Well its 3.9 per 100,000. That ranks us at number 107 in the world for homicides. The 106 countries that top us, well they are stricter on gun control. Let"s break this down further. Homicide rates per capita jump in big cities. Coincidently, the cities with some of the most restrictive gun control laws top the chart:St. Louis: 49.9, Detroit: 43.5, New Orleans: 38.7, Baltimore: 33.8, Newark: 33.3, Buffalo: 23.2, Pittsburgh: 22.4, Memphis: 21.4, Atlanta: 20.5, Cincinnati: 20.2, Oakland: 19.5, Miami: 19.2, Kansas City: 16.7, Stockton: 16.4, Cleveland: 16.2, Washington: 15.9, Philadelphia: 15.9, Indianapolis: 15.8, and our beloved Chicago: 15.1 homicides per 100,000. So if the United States is in the bottom half of all the countries in the world for homicide rate, yet we have the least restrictive gun laws, doesn"t that imply that gun control legislation does not increase our safety? Not to mention that we can see an increase in homicides in cities where there is an increase in gun control laws. This makes sense: Criminals are more emboldened knowing there is a higher likelihood their victims are unarmed. Again, disarming law-abiding citizens doesn"t take the guns away from the criminals. How do we know this? Because only 10% of 18-40 year olds who had a gun at the time of their arrest admitted to having obtained it legally. Gun control laws only pertain to people who buy their guns through an FFL individual or gun shop. Criminals steal, borrow, or buy/sell on the black market to obtain their weapons. When it comes to mass murders, usually the cause is some ideological view with the rare case of just pure insanity. The Boston Marathon bombers used a pressure cooker for example, should we ban those? The argument then goes to gun deaths are more frequent than those pesky pressure cookers. Well like I said before: 3.9 per 100,000 people are murdered each year, and only 2.3% of those deaths are from a mass murder (identified as more than 4 killed in a single incident). But this goes deeper, only 15% of mass murders have a single name attributed, in other words the rest are probably gang related incidents. So there are 0.013 people killed in 100,000, or in round numbers 40-50 people a year. 10,076 people die a year from car accidents. Do we blame cars? People who are deranged enough to take their religion, racism, or political ideas to the next level, and murder as many people as they can, are not going to be derailed by gun laws. Either they will obtain them illegally, or kill by some other means. However now they have a lot more unarmed people to fight them. How many guns were legal to carry into the school in Newtown? How many guns were allowed at Fort Hood? How many guns were legal to carry in the Pulse Night Club? Get the idea?2nd AmendmentOur founding fathers created our 2nd Amendment in order to protect the rest of our rights. What good are rights if a government can strip them from you because you have the inability to fight for them? The whole intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from a government who has become tyrannical " not hunting. Tyranny is the stripping of individual"s rights, and punishing those who don"t believe with their ideological views. Some might even say our current government is tyrannical in that they not only allow but support anti 1st Amendment situations: Safe spaces " in other words don"t come here if you disagree with us. Punishing Christians who refuse to partake in an act that goes against their religion " Christian bakers having to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Forcing religious institutions/businesses to provide abortion coverage in health insurance. Whether you agree with those things or not, understand that from the rights point of view those are all gross violations of our 1st Amendment and have further polarized our country. Everyone"s favorite example in history: Hitler. Disarming the citizens in the name of social justice, then becomes tyrannical and responsible for millions of deaths. Others: Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il/Un, and so on. History is replete with tyrannical governments. The only thing that stops them is other freedom loving countries, or their own people rising up and fighting. Round Conclusion:Gun Control does not make us safer " theoretically or statistically. In fact there is enough evidence to possibly point that it makes us less safe. Most Gun Control laws infringe on our 2nd Amendment, which in turn prevent citizens from being able to protect themselves from threats up to an including our own government.

1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00001-000

Consisten? You're pro in this topic. so you agree to legalize PED. But ur argument ask to make PEDs remain illegal for sportman.

1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00003-000

wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970"s and 1980"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions." Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago "Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !

1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000

PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.

4279e99-2019-04-18T12:51:16Z-00003-000

Although it is true that happiness is not all about money but no one can deny that money does, in fact, affect one's level of happiness.After all, this world is regrettably materialistic and with money, the possibilities are widened.I do not agree with the point that giving money to the poor would be a "short cut". Many of the rich nowadays inherited their wealth from previous generations and therefore are able to easily continue the business and make ridiculous amounts of profits. On the other hand, the poor have worked immensely hard and in most cases much harder than the rich not to maintain their wealth but for survival.So, shouldn't the government should reward the poor's hardwork by giving them money to break out of the poverty cycle?

5609f55e-2019-04-18T16:48:34Z-00000-000

For the good of this debate, I shall end this without introducing anymore arguments.A citizenship is given, not earned. A nation is an institution of citizens, and immigrants should never be given the same rights as real citizens. In my first argument, I said that American institutions, values and virtues, aka freedom, equality and liberty, were threatened by the mass migrations from many places whose economic situation was not as good as the US, and I highlighted how they tried to change American culture and how they do not understand it. I also stated that the economic costs were too high and would damage US's economy rather than improving it, because of increasing inflation and the economic situation of the US. In my second argument, I stated that opposing/denying illegal migrant citizenship is not a violation of human rights because the opponent has cited Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that article stated something immensely different: we should give amnesty to those who escape their country because of persecution, not because of economic factors. I also highlighted the opponent's usage of Pew Hispanic Center, and that Pew Hispanic Research Center is not a center of migration research, but purely Hispanic based research. I also stated that such reform would be a dream, as fees for citizenship and naturalization are only $680, which is not much to pay if you truly want to be a citizen, and the opponent states that "they do not have enough money to do so". The only way such a reform would be achievable was to tax the American Middle Class more, and especially when these illegal migrants are living on one month of an average American worker's wages, there would be massive opposition to such a reform.It is for these reasons, and many more that I am unable to present today, that I urge you to vote con in the following ballot as America as we know it today is threatened. The opponent's absence means that we cannot have a full debate, and I would like to apologize for that inconvenience, although I wasn't able to influence the opponent's choices. I would like to thank the host for hosting this debate, and I would like to thank you for reading the half filled debate and my arguments.Thank You and have a nice day

46e85b73-2019-04-18T12:46:45Z-00000-000

I do not think they should be except from paying their fair share into the economy however I believe they should get a bigger tax refund (I work about 55-60 hours a week)

db7e31b3-2019-04-18T12:01:40Z-00004-000

Pro now states essentially "1....A . Firstly, it should be noted that my opponents answers are all very short and brief. " CON responds that CON's answers are CONCISE. B." It is obvious that he is struggling to find any logical refutation of my argument and is resorting to looking for grammatical errors. For example - He has noted that I have referred to "many diseases" in my first statement. But , I had a good look and can't find this reference. If I am referring to "diseases" - this means - the 'medical systems diseases' and doesn't refer to my opinion or theory of disease. " CON responds that what is "obvious" is that pro has stated that there is only ONE disease, yet goes on to speak of more than one disease ( leaky gut, gangrene, food/chemical poisoning, and diabetes in addition to vitamin deficiency) . C. "I have clearly stated that the "many diseases" of "the medical system" are ALL caused by VITAMIN DEFICIENCY." CON asserts in the strongest possible terms that pro has NOT "clearly stated that the "many diseases" of "the medical system" are ALL caused by VITAMIN DEFICIENCY." Inasmuch as pro has posted this debate, the burden of proof rests with pro. Pro has failed in this burden. In 2. Pro provides some apocryphal information about a visit to a dentist and ends with " All I needed to do was to change my diet to a Paleo diet and all my previous symptoms disappeared." CON asks "are we supposed to avoid grains or are we supposed to avoid volcanoes?" What do nutritionists say about it? The Paleo diet is rated "below-average in every category. The experts were especially critical of its nutritional value" (1) . Further "Most of the other diets are better options for preventing or controlling diabetes, .... ." (2) And, "Experts showed little confidence in the Paleo diet's ability to prevent or manage cardiovascular disease. It was among the lowest-scoring diets in this category." (3) Also "Experts worried about dieters missing out on key nutrients on the Paleo diet, given that it shirks entire food groups. Its rating classifies it as "somewhat unsafe." It was among the poorest performers in this category." (4) Thus it is concisely sourced that if pro's stance is to go Paleo to avoid vitamin deficiency, then the experts totally disagree. In fact the experts point out that Paleo is likely to cause vitamin deficiency. 3. A "This debate is about primary causes of disease." CON thought the debate was about volcanoes. B "Eating grain, dairy and sugar causes a vitamin deficiency because these foods are vitamin deficient. " Here is one of pro's biggest mistakes. Pro's scenario of crop failure ( caused by volcanoes) would REDUCE the availability of the very foods pro claims to be vitamin deficient and then blames the scarcity of those very foods for vitamin deficiency. C "These foods cause blockages and damage to the gut lining which results in a vitamin deficiency." Here is another of pro's mistakes. Pro's scenario of crop failure ( caused by volcanoes) would REDUCE the availability of the very foods pro claims to " cause blockages and damage to the gut lining which results in a vitamin deficiency." and then blames the scarcity of those very foods for vitamin deficiency. D." The chemicals in these foods are unsuitable for the human gut and cause inflammation. " Here is another of pro's mistakes. Pro's scenario of crop failure ( caused by volcanoes) would REDUCE the availability of the very foods where pro claims " The chemicals in these foods are unsuitable for the human gut and cause inflammation. " and then blames the scarcity of those very foods for inflammation. E. "This inflammation is the cause of most disease." CON thought that pro was saying that " All diseases are the result of vitamin deficiency" or perhaps all disease is caused by volcanoes? Now pro posits inflammation as the cause. WHICH IS IT? F. "My opponent is just being silly by stating that " bacteria is not a vitamin deficiency"." CON asserts that this comes from pro's statement that "When you eat too much grain foods you will develop a condition called 'leaky gut syndrome' which will allow your gut bacteria to enter your blood stream" Is pro now adding bacteria to his "causes of disease" ( volcanoes, vitamin deficiency and now bacteria ) ? G. "He is just cherry picking bits and pieces and adding his own illogical conclusions." Is it "cherry picking" or is it "debating"? I challenge pro to show any illogical conclusions that do not originate with pro himself H. "The video evidence provided, clearly states my case." It does not I. "It is obvious that my opponent hasn't watched the video evidence by Loren Cordain. " If it be obvious to pro, then CON questions pro's concept of "the obvious". J. "I have clearly stated that bacteria in the blood supply is a secondary phase of the disease process. " CON responds by inspection that pro has NOT stated anything "clearly" K. "This debate is about primary causes and not about secondary phases." CON thought the debate was about volcanoes. 4. A. " My opponent has got it all wrong yet again." The only thing CON got wrong was by hoping pro would have some VALID points. B. "He has failed to note that during a volcano event, that the population would eat all the fresh food first. Then, after all the fresh food has been depleted, they would consume the stored grain food. " CON has not failed to note this at all. C. "Now, if you are only eating grain food for any length of time, you will become diabetic and " Diabetes is not caused by a "vitamin deficiency" and is by the way yet another disease to which pro has referred. While there is a casual relationship between vitamin D deficiency , there has not been shown to be a causal link. CON awaits to see how pro misunderstands this distinction. D." get gangrene in the fingers, toes and nose extremities." Gangrene is yet another disease referred to by pro which runs counter to his statement that " There is only one disease" E." This will cause your lymph nodes to become swollen." CON cites that the well researched WEB MD lists neither diabetes nor gangrene as a cause of swollen lymphs (5) F, "Thus, I have explained the logical sequence of events which leads to the Black Death." So pro's "logical sequence of events which leads to the Black Death." is that people who had been eating vitamin deficient crops suddenly developed vitamin deficiency when they stopped eating those vitamin deficient crops 100 years after a volcano erupted. They all died of one disease and when the rats disappeared the people all got better. CON disagrees. G. "Thus, you are not starving to death. You are dying because you are eating an inappropriate diet of stored grain food without any other supplements." So 100 years after the volcano erupted , people who had been eating vitamin deficient crops suddenly developed vitamin deficiency when they stopped eating those vitamin deficient crops. They all died of one disease and when the rats disappeared the people all got better. CON disagrees. CON will disprove #5 and 6 in the next round. (1) https://health.usnews.com... (2) https://health.usnews.com... (3) https://health.usnews.com... (4) https://health.usnews.com... (5) https://www.webmd.com...

db7e31b3-2019-04-18T12:01:40Z-00005-000

1. Firstly, it should be noted that my opponents answers are all very short and brief. It is obvious that he is struggling to find any logical refutation of my argument and is resorting to looking for grammatical errors. For example - He has noted that I have referred to "many diseases" in my first statement. But , I had a good look and can't find this reference. If I am referring to "diseases" - this means - the 'medical systems diseases' and doesn't refer to my opinion or theory of disease. I have clearly stated that the "many diseases" of "the medical system" are ALL caused by VITAMIN DEFICIENCY. 2. When I was a small child my dentist put cotton wool under my fillings to make extra money. Also note, my dentist never advised me of what the cause of tooth decay was because he wanted to profit from my ignorance of what the true causes of tooth decay were. Thus, this was my introduction to medical corruption and profiteering. I have since experienced many other personal cases of where poor diagnosis has led me to use many unnecessary pills and medical procedures to cure some problems which I found out later were merely a consequence of a bad diet. Thus, I didn't need any medication or operations to take out any malfunctioning organs. All I needed to do was to change my diet to a Paleo diet and all my previous symptoms disappeared. 3. This debate is about primary causes of disease. Eating grain, dairy and sugar causes a vitamin deficiency because these foods are vitamin deficient. These foods cause blockages and damage to the gut lining which results in a vitamin deficiency. The chemicals in these foods are unsuitable for the human gut and cause inflammation. This inflammation is the cause of most disease. My opponent is just being silly by stating that " bacteria is not a vitamin deficiency". He is just cherry picking bits and pieces and adding his own illogical conclusions. The video evidence provided, clearly states my case. It is obvious that my opponent hasn't watched the video evidence by Loren Cordain. I have clearly stated that bacteria in the blood supply is a secondary phase of the disease process. This debate is about primary causes and not about secondary phases. 4. My opponent has got it all wrong yet again. He has failed to note that during a volcano event, that the population would eat all the fresh food first. Then, after all the fresh food has been depleted, they would consume the stored grain food. Now, if you are only eating grain food for any length of time, you will become diabetic and get gangrene in the fingers, toes and nose extremities. This will cause your lymph nodes to become swollen. Thus, I have explained the logical sequence of events which leads to the Black Death. Thus, you are not starving to death. You are dying because you are eating an inappropriate diet of stored grain food without any other supplements. 5. My opponent agrees that I am right here. 6. Con states that "the incidence of leaky gut syndrome is low". This clearly runs against the evidence that I have provided. Hmmmm???????? 60 million cases in America and Canada. I wouldn't call that 'low'. https://www.livinghealthy.com... https://scdlifestyle.com...

1d667893-2019-04-18T19:47:41Z-00001-000

"How is insuring the safety of infants insane, Steve? I agree that all people should be educated about these things before they have a baby. Although, there are many people who simply do not take the time. What is wrong with insuring that they do?" - Look Candice your killing freedom that is why, your argument is not that allot of first time parents are inadequate to raise children. It is that "All first time parents should be REQUIRED" When you say that I see a program that my tax dollars have to go to, where women are forced to go take this class. If they fail to attend they receive a fine or at worst get children taken away because they did not go to a stupid government program teaching parents how to raise their kids. "You making a point about classes already being available does not in any way disprove my point of every parent needing to take one." - Of course not, but it dose show that the courses are out there and that women who have children can decide for themselves if they need a course or not. It's not up to government it's up to the people. "Laws are everywhere, Steve. People aren't allowed to abuse they're children. Why? Because of laws, put in place by our government." - This is your problem my friend, you have it in your head that the reason the majority of people do not murder or steal or rape is because government says it's bad. This is not the case the reason these things are looked down upon is because they are morally wrong not because government says they are bad. "Laws are there, to protect people. What better enforcement, than a law that secures safety? There's no privacy needed! You don't know how to handle an emergency? Fix it! Don't be embarrassed, get educated. Get informed." - Of course you can paint the picture that way, but it dose not fit into personal freedom. Why should the government be able to decide if a parent is capable or not?? It is not up to them!! the classes are there the people must make their own minds up, we are not sheep Candice that need to rely on big daddy government to hold our hands. The American people have brains. "Also Steve, I wouldn't consider EVERY American woman smart." - Of course not look at Hillary Clinton supporters.

6fd8ab72-2019-04-18T19:49:29Z-00003-000

In instances where profit is made dishonestly, it is wrong and should punishable by law, simply because someone's rights have been violated. But that is why we have the civil and criminal justice systems, which I believe to be the one the only good products of government. "Inherently" is a pretty strong word. It denotes inseparability and implies that profit cannot be gotten in the absence of dishonesty. Just because profit is occasionally gotten by use of nefarious methods in no way validates my opponents premise that profit is inseparable from dishonesty. Do I really have to give examples of honest businesses making an honest profit? My opponent will likely continue citing the opinions of others and pointing to anecdotal examples that in no way prove profit is inherently dishonest. I'm pretty certain I can rest my case for now.

283df47e-2019-04-18T19:33:43Z-00000-000

Why these four "legislation and regulations" have worked completely fine and will continue to work. "schools have taken all sodas out of vending machines in an attempt to curb childhood obesity. However these slots have been populated by sport drinks and "juice". Both of these alternatives while perceived healthier have the same or more calories and an equivalent amount of sugar as soda." While sports drinks and juice may have the same amount of calories they have a wide verity of nutritious value while soda has almost none. According to Understanding Nutrition Tenth Edition in Appendix H 12-13 it states that Juice, bottled or canned has a significant amount of kcal, carbohydrates, iron, magnesium, potassium, sodium, zinc, Thiamin, Vitamin E, Niacin, Vitamin B6, and Vitamin C. While Soda only has kcal, carbohydrates, and sodium this is a huge difference in the amount of nutrients in this case a child would get from these two types of fluid. The book also states that sports drinks that contain carbohydrates are used to restore muscle glycogen after exercise this type of drink can also be used as a pregame beverage. So any child that is in an after school sport or even enrolled in a gym class can benefit from these sport drinks that you claim to be the same as soda. It turns out this was a great regulation. "Problem two is the fact that we have had to cut school funding to the point where they need the vending machines to help cover costs." Well it is a good thing they decided to have a regulation to put healthier drinks in them. "Many areas military, unemployment benefits, social security, and Medicare have contributed to budget constraint issues. I like to think the increase in Medicare and those who use it (older people), have moved funding away from helping the younger generations to preserving the old generations." I don't understand what this has to do with anything. This isn't another issue that shows how new drinks in vending machines is a failure. This is just other things that could help in school funding which isn't even the topic we are discussing. "Problem three, proper diet and nutrition need to be taught at home. Having the option for a soda at school shouldn't be an issue, as children would get one maybe two a week as a splurge as most healthy diets allow for." Yes, proper diet should be taught at home but is it? We live in a "fast food nation" with the economic crisis we are facing eating healthy is hard, so the parents are heading straight for a McDonalds (or any type of inexpensive food) and the kids will most likely grab a soda there as well. So vending machines with sport drinks in schools are better teachers of nutrition then most home lives are. "Second: The banning of trans-fats (New York, Phili, California). These fats are in particular found in oils used to deep fry food. So the obvious problem is people shouldn't be eating deep fried or fried foods to begin with." See statement above about living in a "fast food nation". "I don't care what oil you fry French fries in they'll never be healthy enough to eat more then twice a month." False, look at MyPyramid.gov it recommends daily the intake of oils. Canola oil is the best oil for you (if looked at by having the least amount of saturated fat) this oil is also used in a lot of fast food restaurants. In other food pyramids such as the Mediterranean Olive oil is recommended daily (Nutrition concepts and controversies 11th edition page 46). So what is so bad about recommended oil and a potato (French fry)? "With the ban in trans fats we (society) run the risk of now thinking fried foods are healthier and start eating more of them thus negating any gains." Where did this statement come from? "Third: Requiring chain restaurants to list nutrition content. First issue with this why penalize larger companies and not the smaller shops. I understand larger companies do have the economic resources to determine this information. That fact still doesn't mean that the Mom and Pop shop uses any healthier ingredients." Making chain restaurants list nutrition content is the best start for a bigger plan. By starting with these restaurants that affect the bigger part of the population it puts nutrition into people's faces so they can choose to make better decisions. I don't think this regulation was put into effect to exclude "Mom and Pop" shops it was just a way to start on a large scale and later pass on the same to the smaller restaurants. "Second issue eating out is going to be unhealthy it should be viewed as an occasional treat not as a consistent source of food." Eating out can not be defined as unhealthy. Very wise decisions can be made while eating out. If you are referring to fast food so many of them are coming out with salads, veggie burgers, fruit instead of fries and many other healthy choices. "Third if people don't realize what they're taking in unless it's printed along side the item, then how do they know what they are eating when preparing their own food?" Because they purchase the food they are preparing at a store with the nutritional information given to them on cans, boxes, or any other sort of packaging food comes in. "Fourth: Preventing certain restaurants in certain area's via zoning. The most famous case is in LA preventing any fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles. First they're discriminating based on store differences. Corporate Fast Food no you can't build, Mom and Pop greasy pizza joint go right a head and build. Second they're saying they know what's better for a town or area then the actual inhabitants." This is not an issue because they are not "preventing any fast food restaurants" in South LA. They just chose not allow new fast food restaurants to come in. How are they "trampling on personal freedoms"? It is not our call if a fast food restaurant comes to a town in the first place so why does it matter if there are no more? We can still have the personal freedoms to eat at the ones that already exist if we choose too. I hope everyone can see that these four regulations that my opponent has brought up have made a significant change in "the current trends in Health" and have "fixed" many problems. Thanks again.

5bfa1c78-2019-04-18T17:25:43Z-00001-000

Allow me to quote myself as you have quoted me "A cross on display in a public museum or a school is not a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor is it a mandate you be a follower of Christ. Is it immoral? Well that's an entirely seperate issue. But illegal? Hardly" I made it clear that this debate was not to be about what groups should and shouldn't be allowed to do but rather what the law permits. I read the article that contains the quote you cited from science blog and based on that article it worries me that you might possibly be trying to portray me as a member of the religious right who's making the case that the exact words "seperation of church and state" aren't actually in the constitution so there really is no such thing as the wall of seperation. But of course we both already know no such term is used in the constitution, I was merely describing where a misconception about its meaning comes from. My position, once again, is that religious expression by members of public trust, such as teachers conducting group prayer in public schools is permitted by the constitution. The position you have chosen to defend was supposed to be contrary to that, there's no trap my friend, for the position you have agreed to defend has held up in the court of law many a time. In fact if you look at the many cases dealing with this very issue, I would contend that the majority of them in recent years have ruled in your favor. But lest I say more for the burden of proof lies with you and I think that it would be more fitting that I lay out some evidence of my own. But for your benefit, however, I will cite a case that ruled in favor of your position and that is Engel v. Vitale. I will quote an article that gives you a bit of background as to what the case was about and then I'll quote excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions and the explain why latter is more compelling "Facts of the Case The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." Majority Opinion "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America... [T]he successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law" Dissenting Opinion "I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation." The dissenting opinion is far more compelling because comparing children voluntarily saying a prayer in school to the type of religious persecution faced by early colonists while in England is like comparing apples to oranges. The first amendment prohibits congress to make a law respecting and establishment of religion in order to prevent one faith being branded as the official religion of the land. When children say a prayer led by teachers in school no such law has been enacted, in fact congress has taken no part whatsoever. Unless the prayer is compulsory and/or there is a prerequisite to follow a certain faith if you are to become, for example, a teacher, than neither the religious liberty of the students nor their parents has been broken. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Arcording the the article from which you borrowed the above quote, Thomas Jefferson said this in response to whether or not tax dollars should go to contributing a Connecticut church. But of course congress requiring by law it's citizens give financial support to a certain faith would be considered as making a law in respects to an establishment of religion. When Jefferson told those people their legislature had no place creating these sorts of laws he was referring to the Establishment Clause and the Free Excercise Clause, the quote con selected proves that. Those Clauses both clearly pertain to congress and or the legislature. When children say prayers in groups during school congress has taken no part, they're simply exercising they're freedom to express religious beliefs in public domain. Sorry I didn't lay out clear enough rules to put us on the same page. I look forward to reading your responses. Sources http://www.infidels.org...... http://www.oyez.org...... http://www.pbs.org...... http://www.law.cornell.edu...... Report this Argument

bbb0ca54-2019-04-18T11:44:57Z-00001-000

I would like to rebut con's statement. Homework is not optional in many schools. also, homework does a lot of harm to peoples body. many people have complained of headaches, fevers, and others just because of having too much homework. people should be responsible enough to choose their amount of work they should be able to do and they can do it as they may have supplementary classes. thus, homework should be optional. I hope you reply soon

bbb0ca54-2019-04-18T11:44:57Z-00003-000

homework is not liked by many people. thus. it should be optional.

ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00001-000

Introduction: I am impressed by Pro's reply. I have more time to work on my argument now, so hopefully this argument will be better than the last. Analysis of the Resolution: Pro didn't say that this was a public forum debate. I'm only pointing out that the debate shouldn't hinge on things that the resolution is vague about. Rebuttals: CA1: Solvency Vaccination improves quality of life. It doesn't follow that it should be mandatory. Yacht ownership improves quality of life, but mandating it would be a harmful misallocation of resources. Pro's case is founded on unwarranted fears. In the United States today, there are only two states in which vaccine exemption is not allowed for any reason other than medical necessity: West Virginia and Mississippi [1]. I also stated that even among parents who believe vaccines are risky, 86% still fully vaccinate their children [2]. The percentage of people who believe that vaccines are dangerous appears to be small [3], and the majority of people, who believe vaccines are safe, use them at an even higher rate (98%) [2]. There is no immediate danger of falling below Pro's 90-95% herd immunity threshold. The crux of this argument is the following: if herd immunity is achieved without mandates then Pro cannot claim it as an advantage. I will further repeat my argument that government involvement in vaccination is the cause of irrational fears of vaccines in the first place. See: crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists. Providing vaccines through sources that people trust instead of through a legitimately frightening bureaucratic mechanism of total state power would alleviate much of these worries. By trying to force their beliefs on everyone else, the scientific community is creating resistance to an idea that people could otherwise be reasonably persuaded to accept. Turn Pro's graph: we don't have vaccine mandates today, but numerous diseases have been eradicated or significantly reduced. CA2: Community This whole argument is predicated on the assumption that herd immunity will be lost without mandatory vaccination. We have herd immunity and no mandatory vaccination, so that can't be true. In spite of what Pro (and seemingly every other person who I've debated this with) thinks, I fully understand the concept of herd immunity. My argument is that herd immunity is achieved through voluntary vaccination. Pro claims that the number of parents choosing to exempt their children is rising so rapidly that herd immunity will be lost in the future. She has no evidence for that prediction. At the current moment, herd immunity is secure, and the backlash from the scientific community against the anti-vaccination movement has been significant. It is just as likely that vaccine resistance will once again decline. I want to reply to a specific comment from Pro: “My opponent also claims that at different times, different vaccinations are needed. This is outrageous - a constant vaccination of children is vital to ensure the safety of the people from the disease returning.” I don't see how my claim is disputable. In areas where disease X is more common, more vaccination against it is necessary than in areas where it is less common. When swine flu broke out, it was necessary to vaccinate against it. Now it is mostly gone, and there is no more need to vaccinate against it. Pro's argument seems to lead to the conclusion that we need to be fully vaccinated against every disease, all the time. But it should be obvious to everyone why vaccinating everyone against hundreds of strains of the common cold all the time would be an uneconomic waste of resources that could help people in other ways. Once this fact is conceded, we can see how it extends to every disease: total immunization isn't necessary. Voluntary choice has so far proven more than sufficient to meet the minimum threshold. CA3: Money I have found Pro's reply here difficult to understand. On the issue of people who cannot afford vaccines: I argued that it is non-topical. They can be provided with money to purchase vaccines without being required to do so. My calculations were simple arithmetic. Pro said that vaccines will save $231 billion over the next ten years. Assume this could be increased 10% through a mandate (very generous because more than 90% of children are fully vaccinated). That's $23.1 billion, which we divide by ten to get the annual savings: $2.31 billion. Now divide by the number of people in the US (about 350 million) to get the savings per person: it comes out to $6.60, which I rounded to $5. It is reasonable to assume that it would cost more money than this to implement a vaccine mandate. It will require an increase in administrative and law enforcement costs, which are already notoriously high. In 2011, there were 75 million children in the US[4]. That means that Pro has only about $30 to spend per child, which is considerably less than the cost of a single vaccine. In order to have the possibility of saving money, Pro's program would have to vaccinate more children than there are unvaccinated children. You will not save money by mandating vaccines for the same reason you will not save money by mandating teeth brushing: the savings of the mandate are so small compared to ordinary behavior that they will be outweighed by the cost of enforcing it. CA4: Authority I am going consider this argument conceded by Pro and not address it again. Affirmative Arguments: C1: Economic Calculation I am calling this argument dropped. Pro's reply was a complete non sequitur. The economic calculation argument says that you can never know whether an intervention in the free market is beneficial or not because the interactions between market variables are too complex. Any attempt at economic policy is just groping in the dark. Pro's reply had nothing to do with this. Just putting the same heading in and writing unrelated words isn't a response. It's not up to me to waste space repeating myself. Pro's own rule says that a drop is a concession. She must admit that she has no idea whether a vaccine mandate is really a better use of those resources than what the market would otherwise do. Replying with a non sequitur is a borderline abusive argument because I have to waste limited space explaining it. C2: Biopolitics This is a consequentialist argument based on Pro's criterion of justice: it says that by eroding certain barriers to political power, we risk grave expansions in government power. The difference between a free society and a totalitarian society is the existence on legal barriers to the state's use of force against the citizen's person. When we remove this restrictions, we create an environment that is legally and philosophical partial to totalitarianism. Pro's contention on authority does not address this. All it says is that it would be legal for the state to do this. I am talking about the consequences of actually doing it. Pro's argument just begs the question anyway: if I don't think the state has the authority to make these decisions, the fact that the state says it does isn't going to persuade me. The fact that the resolution applies to children does it help. It means that the state replaces the parent as the arbiter of the child's biological life. This is just as disastrous. If the state is responsible for stopping “bad parenting” as Pro says, then children are really wards of the state who their parents are allowed to care for at the state's whim. Conclusion: Pro's argument seems to assume that we have mandatory vaccination now (and this is commonly assumed). Far from it. Non-medical excuses are allowed in 48 states. Anyone who does not want their child vaccinated can cook up a religious or philosophical reason why. Thus, people who are against vaccination do in fact vaccinate their children at lower rates. But in spite of this, public vaccination has been remarkably successful. Sources: Will post all sources for the debate next round. Out of time and space. I can post them early if needed.

9d81ef40-2019-04-18T19:16:11Z-00005-000

Thank you for accepting this debate, Many people have fallen for the lie that illegal aliens are helping the United States by bringing in money, and doing work that American's are lazy to do, but in fact illegals are using up so much money, that it is hurting the true legal citizens of the USA. Each year $11 billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens http://www.fairus.org... Many people are getting food stamps, but it is not enough http://www.wwaytv3.com... Illegal citizens do get food stamps though. http://www.cis.org... As for illegal citizens working the jobs that Americans do not want to, that is a bold lie. The reason illegals have most of the dirty jobs is not because Americans are to lazy, it is because they do not have to be paid minimum wage. So people will hire someone who will get the same amount of work done for a lower price. Most Americans will take any job they can get, now that the jobless rate has hit 10% http://www.guardian.co.uk... Also many illegals aliens send money that the earned in the USA to their families in other countries, therefor taking money out of the United States A nation without borders is not a nation at all -Regan

a82903ee-2019-04-18T19:09:15Z-00005-000

Please note that this is not whether the State of Israel should have been formulated. Rather, it should be approached as such; that once the State exists, as it does now, should it be discontinued because it has no right to continue, or should it be allowed to continue because it has a right, as is, to continue as such. There are two ways to view the right to land. According to both, Israel, as a Jewish State, has a right to continue to exist. 1.Land belongs to the people who settled it or claimed it for settlement first. This is a popular view for Palestinian Arabs, followed by the claim they got there first. However, there is more than sufficient historical evidence that the area was originally settled by a group that are the direct forerunners of today's Jewish population. The "Palestinians" from whom they conquered the land have no traceable descendants. Additionally, the land has had a Jewish presence almost continuously for almost the last 3300 years. Thus, if anyone has a preexisting claim over it, Jews have. 2.Land belongs to whoever lives there. In a democracy (and many other forms of government), land belongs to whoever lives there, and the government follows the will of the majority of people. This applies even if the majority changes due to an excess of different people moving in (except for an invading army, because they are really just one entity, as they are obliged to follow the will of their commander.) The majority of Israel is Jews; therefore it should be a Jewish State.

ad26e931-2019-04-18T11:56:40Z-00001-000

I have never said that children would be wrestling grown men, I don't know where you that from my opening statement. As for the fact that some children would try to mimic what they see on TV, the fact that you point that out makes me believe that you would be one to say that violent video games lead to violent behavior. There are, in fact, some cases of those being correlated, however it has been wideslreadly known that violent video games, no matter how bloody, are not a contributing factor to child violence. In fact, it has been found that it actually helps with violent behavior, and acts as a catharsis for said violent behavior. If a child was to mimic what they saw on TV, it is only his wanting to imitate what he saw, being grown men fighting each other for a prize, he's would just happen to be fufulling his own violent tendencies, being a young man who has those sort of behaviors and self-wanting to fufill. There happens to be a thing called testosterone, which all MALE PEOPLE have, and that leads us to those sorts of things.

debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00001-000

"Maybe. But with no statistics on what the bully would do, (Look for new things to make fun of him for or just stop) We can't use your argument as an assertion or proof that it will reduce bullying."I agree. However it is entirely likely that the only reason the bully was picking on the kid in the first place was because of what the kid was wearing. If clothing no longer mattered then this would no longer be a problem."I really don't think that'd be a valid solution to the bullying problem, having a child stay home and hide doesn't seem like a very practical solution."Well you suggested that bullies would bully somebody over the weekends. I'm suggesting that the bully would not want to waste time looking for somebody to bully over the weekends. Usually this is done at school. But this is getting off topic. This debate is about uniforms."And yet again, a person who cares deeply about how they look does not enjoy wearing an uncomfortable uniform. For example, girls often have to wear dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children."Somebody who wore uniforms all his/her life would not nothing else. In other words, there would be different expectations on clothing and people would not feel uncomfortable."Over what period of time?"Days, weeks, months. It varies."Well, I did say that students who are self conscious about how they look would feel ridiculous in normal clothing let alone school uniforms. But I shall also assert that they are uncomfortable."Maybe uniforms are uncomfortable. Does that mean people have to be comfortable for every hour of their lives? Also, I would like to point out that with modern technology, uniforms can become very comfortable. As comfortable as regular clothes."That's the point. There is not only one way to respect your area of education. Notice Pro has also ignored the question on why it is important to respect your school, rather than having a neutral view on it."Children get free education at school so yes, they should respect the school."How do you think the Government would afford this? Where is the omens for this going to come from? It' not as if the Government has a magic pot of gold to fill every desire."For some reason, the government can afford tens of thousands of dollars on sports. New soccer and football fields every 10 years or so. So yes, I think the government/school can afford the money for uniforms."Why not apply the same logic to dress codes? If the students always have dress codes, then they would get used to it. This could be comparable to getting used to uniforms."Students don't listen to dress codes. That is a big problem today. Also, if there were uniforms then there would be no need for dress codes."Really. Show me your source that says this."Show me some sources that say otherwise. When I went to school, there were many people who noticeably wore different clothes every day (including shoes). Many people even admitted to wearing 7 different outfits per week."The point was that you never justified taking away their rights to express themselves."There are many different ways to express yourself. My opponent will have to show that it is impossible to express yourself when kids have to wear uniforms."I'm waiting to here back from Pro now. Many of the arguments/Questions were simply dropped."This is untrue. I responded to all of my opponents arguments. However it seems that my opponent has conceded to a couple of my arguments. I provided statistics that suggest that students do better at school if uniforms were put into place. Also, I explained how students who wear uniforms at school will learn how to dress appropriately when they have a job in the future. My opponent mostly responded to my arguments. He presented few of his own. I have shown that uniforms help students succeed. My opponent has shown that students would be unhappy if they were forced to wear uniforms. I countered this argument by showing that if students had never known anything besides uniforms then they would not be unhappy. My opponent constantly tried to say that I presented no proof. However my opponent didn't present too much either. He did not prove that bullies would find something else to bully about if a student wore uniforms. Also, my opponent never really proved that bullies would purposely try and seek out the person they want to bully over the weekends. This is all I have left to say. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.Sources:http://www.greatschools.org...

debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00002-000

.. "Or maybe bullies will just decide to leave the poor kid alone"Maybe. But with no statistics on what the bully would do, (Look for new things to make fun of him for or just stop) We can't use your argument as an assertion or proof that it will reduce bullying. "Unless a bully knows where somebody lives, he cannot bully him/her over the weekends. And on the weekends, the bullied kid can just hide in his house. Bullies don't purposefully go to other people's houses to bully them"I really don't think that'd be a valid solution to the bullying problem, having a child stay home and hide doesn't seem like a very practical solution. "How? Bullies don't enter other people's houses to see what the person is wearing. This would just get the bully into jail. This argument makes no sense"The argument was meaning to say that the bully would find a new flaw. Obviously Pro had misunderstood it, thus it made no sense to him as he stated. The argument is that rather than the bully or rather enemy of the student saying: "Rats foiled again. .. "He/she would just find a new flaw. Remember, bullying is the *repeated* act of unkindness. [1] It goes unasserted that the bully would literally only have one insult for a student, yet still bring it up time and time again. "Uniforms do help ensure equality. Kids are more equal compared to each other if they wear the same clothes""Not even a shred of evidence is shown to assert that students stand in front of a mirror for half of an hour every morning. ""Unfortunately, it would be very difficult for me to give a reliable source to prove this"I know it would. "However I think we can all assume that there are some (a minority) of people who care deeply about how they look"Sure, but to apply this to the majority of people would not be wise. And yet again, a person who cares deeply about how they look does not enjoy wearing an uncomfortable uniform. For example, girls often have to wear dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children. "If this were untrue, then people wouldn't be wasting thousands of dollars on shopping for clothes"Over what period of time? "How would you know if students would feel ridiculous in uniforms? Where in your sources does it say this"Well, I did say that students who are self conscious about how they look would feel ridiculous in normal clothing let alone school uniforms. But I shall also assert that they are uncomfortable. "Respect for America is shown in schools not by making the students wear giant flags, but by making them say the Pledge of Allegiance. You show respect for America when saying the Pledge of Allegiance"That's the point. There is not only one way to respect your area of education. Notice Pro has also ignored the question on why it is important to respect your school, rather than having a neutral view on it. " The cost of a uniform is not greater""After all, students can wear whatever they want on the weekends" Obviously, when you add normal clothing costs it would be more expensive, or at least the same price. "And if a law was to be put into place that all students should be required to wear uniforms, it is likely that the government will pay those fees. After all, in order for this law to work, all students would have to wear uniforms and there are some families who cannot afford this clothes"How do you think the Government would afford this? Where is the omens for this going to come from? It' not as if the Government has a magic pot of gold to fill every desire. ""Why would students be more compelled to wear a uniform than they would to follow the dress code? "If this was how they were taught from the very beginning (elementary school) then yes, students would wear the uniforms. Dress code wouldn't be a problem if there were uniforms"Why not apply the same logic to dress codes? If the students always have dress codes, then they would get used to it. This could be comparable to getting used to uniforms. "Do I really need sources to prove this? "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well. If you're going to use it in an argument, I require a source for it. "Yes many students do wear 7 outfits a day"Really. Show me your source that says this. " There are even those who take 20 minute showers every day"I'm happy for them. This has nothing to do with the arguments at hand though. "I was simply stating my position. And I'm not sure what exactly my opponent's position is here. I ask for clarification"The point was that you never justified taking away their rights to express themselves. "this isn't the last round yet"Of course, I never implied that. I'm waiting to here back from Pro now. Many of the arguments/Questions were simply dropped. .. [1] . http://www.americanhumane.org...

debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00005-000

My Arguments:-Uniforms ensure equality among students. If children wear uniforms then they cannot be judged by what they wear. [1]-Uniforms make students less self-conscious of their appearance. Students would not have to have to stand in front of the mirror for half an hour every morning to decide if their outfit is good enough or what outfit to wear. This argument can be applied to many students, especially girls.-It shows signs of respect and politeness. You show respect to your school and teachers when you wear uniforms.-Uniforms save money. When you only have to wear two outfits a week that aren't your school uniform, you can have a more limited selection of clothing. You do not have to buy as much clothing, and therefore, you save money. In low income areas, uniforms would be a good idea because parents wouldn't have to worry about buying all sorts of new clothing for their children and children wouldn't feel pressured to have new cloth items to fit in because everyone would have the same clothing as they did.-Uniforms enforce discipline. Students are made to wear uniforms instead of whatever they want.-Teachers don't have to worry about dress code. Things to worry about in dress code:hats/hoodsreally short shorts/skirtsetc...If there are uniforms then everybody will be dressed appropriately. This would give teachers one less thing to worry about.-It helps prepare students for their future jobs. Students learn how to dress appropriately for work. If they dress in t-shirts and jeans while they go to school then they might think that this would be OK to do when they go into jobs as adults. If this is what they learn at school, then this is what students would do as adults. I understand that there is always a good chance that parents might teach students how to dress appropriately but this doesn't always happen. [2]-School uniforms could lower the cases of bullying within schools. In many cases kids are insulted and picked on because of the clothes they wear and how they look. If all students wear the same thing it would be very hard almost impossible to make fun of someone who is wearing the same thing as you.-Making all children wear school uniforms would make them put more focus on school work. Kids wouldn't be constantly looking at what others are wearing and thinking about what they should be wearing. In addition to this, students often waste a lot of time shopping. If students had to wear uniforms then they wouldn't need/want to shop as much since there would never be a chance to wear the as much cloths.-Uniforms save water. This might seem like an odd argument at first site. However if you think about it, this argument would start to make more sense. Students would only have 2 uniforms per weak and wouldn't have as much chance to wash them. Today, many students wear one pair of jeans, one t-shirt, and one sweater per day and wash seven pairs of all three items every day. Students wouldn't have 5 uniforms (one for each school day) and as a result, a lot of water would be saved.-What studies show. Some studies show that school uniforms might help attendance and graduation rates.Studies show that having students wear uniforms would help them get through school. "...reported that mean graduation rates rose nearly 11 percent at schools that required uniforms, compared to pre-uniform years. Non-uniform school mean graduation rates dropped 4.6 percent, compared with the earlier years." [link below]http://www.19actionnews.com...The negative sides of uniforms:I agree that there are several negative sides to wearing uniforms. I will state some of them now and I will also state my arguments that oppose these points.-Students wouldn't get the freedom to choose what they want to wear. My response:People's lives must have some limits. Children and teens may want to wear whatever they like and would be very unhappy if they were forced to wear uniforms. However I showed that students would benefit from being forced to wear uniforms and that benefit is more important than freedom.-Students wouldn't be able to express themselves properly.My response:This is true. People are often judged by how they dress. If a student is dressed neatly and has clean clothes every day then teachers may think differently of that student than they would think of somebody who constantly has sagging jeans and dirty clothes. I haven't really responded to any of my opponents arguments since my opponent has not yet had the chance to state any. I simply stated my opinion and position on what I think my opponent's arguments will be in the next round.Conclusion:I have provided many arguments that support the idea of having uniforms at school. Although uniforms may be unpopular with many people, they are not a bad idea. Studies support my thinking. The future of students should be put in front of what individual stunts want to wear. Students would be more successful if they did not get the option of deciding what to wear every to school. After all, students can always wear whatever they want on the weekends. Weekends are for students to do what they want. I await arguments and/or responses from my opponent.Sources:http://www.angelfire.com...http://www.ehow.com...

31cfc25e-2019-04-18T14:01:34Z-00001-000

Yeah, I assumed that you are arguing for "shouldn't." So I argued for "should." Regardless, good debate.....

dfe50b72-2019-04-18T18:20:53Z-00003-000

I thank Con for debating with me. However, his argument has many flaws: Rebuttal 1: My opponent stated the case of a crazed man with a gun. However, Con has failed to recognize my point that anyone owning a gun must be legally licensced (Support 3). Therefore, the absurd point that a crazed man owns a gun (legally) is wrong. Rebuttal 2: Con stated having a shotgun/rifle as plausible. However, California law gives strict requirements for gun owners such as restricting felons from owning rifles. Support: The rebuttals highlight a support for my reasons in that the laws require gun owners to have a clean history (Reason 3) and use guns wisely such as to defend oneself. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...

d883245-2019-04-18T16:12:46Z-00006-000

One common argument for the continuing existence of the Death Penalty is the idea that lawyers can threaten to pursue the Death Penalty, and thus scare the defendant into pleading guilty to a life sentence (or other lesser sentence) instead. I believe that this violates the intentions of our law system, and this argument should not be considered in a Death Penalty debate. Any questions about this debate, please ask in the comments before you accept.

eb14075-2019-04-18T16:15:40Z-00000-000

Arguments ExtendedVote Pro

b758986e-2019-04-18T16:13:14Z-00008-000

I feel the same way about sourcing. My position is that there should be "intercourse" before 18; Not for everyone of course, just for people who feel like doing it. Make your points first please.

8c23c9f3-2019-04-18T12:14:29Z-00002-000

Discipline (in nature) can be an effective tool in learning anything, to be quite fair. The reason discipline is taken away in public systems is really due to this fact. It may have the benefits of teaching people through a way they will remember, but it mainly causes a side effect of the person's moral. I've heard so many times how dads/moms disciplined their kid and those kids mainly result to having suicidal thoughts if not already committed that action. The less it is promoted, the better.

90ee2c92-2019-04-18T13:46:20Z-00000-000

Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans.

7a2ece15-2019-04-18T15:34:12Z-00003-000

"But the study suggests that low-fat diets weaken the immune system and slow the body"s healing process and make it less effective." (1) When you are eating a low-fat diet it would never occur to you that you could be doing damage to your body. But you very well might be. When your immune system is weakened and can"t fight off infections or anything of that nature, it can be very bad for your health. "A lack of fats and cholesterol can allow damage in arteries and veins to reach critical levels and lead to heart attacks, strokes or organ failure." (1) People need to be putting fats into their everyday meals to keep their bodies performing at their full potential. There are other ways that you can eat if you need to lose weight or keep weight off without doing damage to your body. With cancer being as big as it is, I would much rather eat something fatty and feel guilty than eat something low-fat and run the risk of getting cancer.

6696fc5e-2019-04-18T15:03:16Z-00004-000

I think that abortion should be legal if you have been raped by a relative or a random stranger. Imagine if you got raped and pregnant then you had to carry that baby for NINE months. Waking up everyday with that child having to relive that situation over and over again. Yes, God wouldn't want you to kill a child but he wouldn't want this to happen to you also. F.Y.I- I am not saying that killing a baby is alright. I am against killing a baby if you are just playing around.

37ce65c7-2019-04-18T19:12:58Z-00005-000

==OPENING STATEMENTS== The issue this debate brings up covers the question of gun ownership. Should we legislate to restrict Second Amendment privileges from convicted felons? I will begin my argument by defining words, after which, I will present my contentions. ==DEFINITIONS== Privilege: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all (1) Weapon: any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting (2) ==ARGUMENT== Gun ownership being guaranteed as a right to all Americans would provoke more violence and more fear. The form of gun control which I am defending today is one of the safest measures we as a country can take. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was signed into law. This bill was designed to implement a background check process in order to help ensure that the person in question was clear of foul play or other felonies, which would make him or her seem potentially dangerous to society. If a person was found to have had a confirmed history of foul play involving weapons, he or she would be denied the privilege to own a firearm. Since the time this law was signed, there has been a significant drop in gun violence in the United States. (3) Because of this fact, it is plain to see how imposing this form of gun control has been effective is keeping people safer. I conclude my start of round one. ==SOURCES== (1) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (2) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (3) http://www.americanthinker.com...

c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00004-000

"The prevention of harm to the woman is not the only reason for abortion, an abortion could be used for other reasons such as birth control, the prevention of a fetus with deformities from having a life of suffering, among other reasons." Yes, but the prevention of harm to the woman is the only valid legal reason, and that reason was essentially decided along ethical lines – it's also the only valid ethical reason. A fetus with deformities? Which deformities? What's a "life of suffering?" People with disabilities aren't all wallowing in misery. "An abortion could be necessary when it is too late to use other methods of birth control. And it doesn't make sense to say that women will always get an abortion instead of using other methods of birth control earlier. A woman will realize that it is easier to use protection opposed to not and always having to get abortions." That is absolutely true. I'm saying that when an abortion is no longer necessary, because of alternative treatments, there is no longer a compelling interest for abortions to be legal. "It is not possible to determine? Do you consider sperm to be human? Many people let millions of sperm die every day, but that will never be illegal. Some people think that a fetus becomes human when it can survive outside of the body. Some people think it becomes a human after it leaves the body. There can be many points when a fetus could be considered human, but the moment of conception is certainly not one of them. The moment of conception merely creates a cluster of cells that is incapable of thinking, showing emotion, of being conscious. A woman can choose where to draw the line of when the fetus is human, making abortion illegal is not the solution." You ignore my point, and then drew completely different conclusions from your interpretation of it. The point is that human life exists along a continuum, and along that continuum there exist stages where, as you said "a fetus could be considered human." I am not arguing that conception is such a stage, but I don't need to because the morning after pill fixes that problem without abortion. Abortion is a procedure that is not performed on unfertilized eggs and sperm, or even on early stage zygotes, but on embryos and fetuses. The discussion of the validity of human life is only valid within this range. "That may be true, but that 'someday' hasn't happened yet. For now, abortion must remain legal." This is not what you were arguing. You were arguing that "abortion should remain legal" because "women should have the right to their own bodies, not the government. A fetus is not a human, it is a potential human. Because of that, a potential human does not have any rights." A fetus may, in fact, have rights, because it may be human, and not merely a potential human. Just as you said, definitions differ. By asserting that the fetus' rights are never taken into account, you are making an argument that abortions are justified no matter what happens. After all, if one being has rights and the other does not, then there is nothing stopping the one being from doing as it wishes to the other. I am arguing that abortion rights should not remain legal indefinitely, as you have proposed, because there may (and likely will) come a time when abortion is no longer a valid ethical risk to take. Other Reasons for Abortion "A woman may want to get an abortion because she can't pay for the child. Would you want to be paying with your tax dollars for those unplanned children?" Sure. I like people more than things. But seriously, she could have the child adopted, or be required to seek potential adoptive parents before birth. There are certainly enough people who would like to have children. "Also, would you really deny a rape victim from having an abortion?" Yes. Potential should not be thwarted because of origin. "Would you expect her to care for a baby she didn't ask for, have to endure 9 months of pregnancy and labor, and have that baby as a reminder of the incident and that the child carries the genes of a rapist?" 1.I am positing that a procedure may exist to remove the child safely from the mother and incubate it so that she can get on with her life. When this happens, labor pains can no longer be taken into account as an ethical concern. 2.The "genes of a rapist" argument is eugenics speak. Many children of rape are adopted and go on to live 'normal' lives. Rape is borne out of the effects of certain experiences on those organisms that develop as a consequence of their genes. You can not inherent actions, just (possibly) a likelihood to commit certain actions given similar circumstances. http://forums.adoption.com... " Also, it shouldn't only be for a rape victim, there are other woman who don't want to carry that fetus around for 9 months that is an accident that a lot of parents would love less than a planned child." This is an argument for better birth control, not abortion. " And think of all the unplanned children adding to the population that is already starting to overcrowd, and how a kid would react if they found out that they were an accident." This is also an argument for better birth control, not abortion.

c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00005-000

'The validity of the abortion right therefore stems from the right of an individual (the mother), who is certainly a fully conscious human being, to prevent harm to herself' The prevention of harm to the woman is not the only reason for abortion, an abortion could be used for other reasons such as birth control, the prevention of a fetus with deformities from having a life of suffering, among other reasons. 'In an age where prophylactics are common and readily available, and a simple pill can prevent pregnancy before the development of the fetus, it is monstrous to needlessly engage in a behavior that threatens even the potentiality of human life.' An abortion could be necessary when it is too late to use other methods of birth control. And it doesn't make sense to say that women will always get an abortion instead of using other methods of birth control earlier. A woman will realize that it is easier to use protection opposed to not and always having to get abortions. 'The potential citizen may, in fact, qualify as a citizen when a fetus, but it is impossible to determine' It is not possible to determine? Do you consider sperm to be human? Many people let millions of sperm die every day, but that will never be illegal. Some people think that a fetus becomes human when it can survive outside of the body. Some people think it becomes a human after it leaves the body. There can be many points when a fetus could be considered human, but the moment of conception is certainly not one of them. The moment of conception merely creates a cluster of cells that is incapable of thinking, showing emotion, of being conscious. A woman can choose where to draw the line of when the fetus is human, making abortion illegal is not the solution. 'Someday, a method could be developed to safely and easily excise the child from the mother and continue the child's development outside of her womb' That may be true, but that 'someday' hasn't happened yet. For now, abortion must remain legal. Other Reasons for Abortion A woman may want to get an abortion because she can't pay for the child. Would you want to be paying with your tax dollars for those unplanned children? Also, would you really deny a rape victim from having an abortion? Would you expect her to care for a baby she didn't ask for, have to endure 9 months of pregnancy and labor, and have that baby as a reminder of the incident and that the child carries the genes of a rapist? Also, it shouldn't only be for a rape victim, there are other woman who don't want to carry that fetus around for 9 months that is an accident that a lot of parents would love less than a planned child. And think of all the unplanned children adding to the population that is already starting to overcrowd, and how a kid would react if they found out that they were an accident.

b5ccaffb-2019-04-18T16:45:07Z-00003-000

Since Pro did not lay down any definitions I will offer them. sport : a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other professional : paid to participate in a sport or activity gaming : the activity of playing computer games Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing professional gaming (gamers paid to participate in tournaments, competitions, etc) should not be considered a sport (a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities). 1. Playing computer games is not a physical activity. A sport requires physical skill and ability. Anything where you're sitting still in a chair isn't a sport. The only physical attributes one needs for computer gaming is hand eye coordination and fingers that possess some form of dexterity, while real sports like basketball, soccer and tennis requires you to use your whole body. Therefore playing computer games is not a sport. 2. Their is no such thing as professional gaming. I never heard of someone investing their money on a gamer/team of gamers to play in a tournament. Gaming teams join tournaments for free or for with a fee. No one is paying them to participate in a tournament and they join tournaments to win and have fun. 3. Computer gaming are not like other sports. EA-sports is games about sports and does not mean that it is a sport. Computer gaming is a computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen. Sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

b5ccaffb-2019-04-18T16:45:07Z-00004-000

P1.It requires skill like other sports. P2.it's competive like other sports. p3.it's like other sports. conclusion it should be considered a sport

5d788b11-2019-04-18T19:17:17Z-00002-000

I will use my opponent's structure from RD 4: -------------------- Aff Case: Value Debate 1. I'm not achieving equality. I'm achieving equal access to educational standards. The two are not the same. 2. Utilitarianism is unjust and discriminatory. My opponent has yet to address this. Extend it. 3. Extend my previous comments about NCLB and how much it fails as a legislative measure, especially if my opponent is linking NCLB with the discriminatory practice of utilitarianism. Criterion Debate 1. Extend all previous responses on the criterion debate. Space compels me not to repeat them a third time, but they go unaddressed, which means that my opponent has no criterion. Contention 1, Sub A Point 1 (I believe he is referring to my numbered responses in RD 3) -The unconstitutionality comes from denying large amounts of students equal access to education, as is proved in my entire case. -The funding of the test is not at issue. It never has been. The funding of individual districts in order to provide equal access to materials and quality staffing is. Extend my analysis on this point. Point 2 -Clarification: I stated that my opponent has no warrants to back up his claim that the intentions of exit exams match their actual outcomes. We can create something with the best intentions in mind, but its application could still lead to utter failure (as is the case with exit exams). -Of course exit exams match state standards (national standards don't exist as education is a state's right). That doesn't prove that the exit exam ensures equal access to education, though, as those state standards are currently not being taught equally. Hence, underserved students can't pass the exit exam due to systemic discrimination. Cross-apply those impacts I noted from RD 3. Point 3 -I never stated that exit exams don't prepare students for the workforce. Our evaluation of them can't even make it that far because of unequal access to education. What I stated was that my opponent didn't provide a warrant to prove that exit exams did all the good things that he said they did. One can't just assert something like that without a warrant. Contention 1, Sub B Tagline Response: At the point where I prove that exit exams are invalid due to inherent, systemic flaws, the "weaknesses" my opponent refers to cannot be trusted, anyway. Point 1 -This brighter world/better workforce is inaccessible by my opponent; I've warranted this claim multiple times. Point 2 -The warrant for non-graduates being individually unsuccessful as well as a social liability is, in fact, directly in my case. Look to my second and third cards. Evidence provided. Point 3 -Private scores & "teachers help" do not solve the impacts that I extend in RD 3. This is also another unwarranted assertion with no clear link to my response. -------------------- Neg Case Value Debate -Exit exam grading policy has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've argued in this debate. The system is biased (the distribution of education itself), which is why the test fails. Again, I never claim that exit exams themselves are biased in form or in grading. Blip on Equal Rights (between value debate and criterion debate) -My opponent has yet to link the exit exam to equal access to education in any way, warrant or not. I have. Criterion Debate -Extend the arguments made in the initial rounds. It is abusive to use exit exams as a criterion. Neg Contentions: One more time, I'll ask that you extend my responses to my opponent's case, which have been posted since RD 1. Silence only has the potential to be consent if one is actually silent. 1) "Cross-apply the entire Aff case. Neg is actively marginalizing an entire segment of US citizens, which is patently unjust. Since not only 90% of the population is due a legitimate, equal education, you can vote Aff on that alone."- This is entirely dropped, which takes out his entire case. 2) "Neg has no warrant for his only offensive argument. In fact, 1/2 the states show 70-80% passing."- My opponent states that his 90% passing stat is true, but never says anything about the source that I provide in RD 1. Hence, you will prefer my stat. However, the first, dropped argument is your reason to vote Aff. I will only provide voting issues, and no new arguments, in my last round. I encourage my opponent to do the same.

24035fd1-2019-04-18T12:22:39Z-00004-000

Yes, they should. Schools that include school uniforms had a 51% less fighting rate, possibly because they didnt have anything to steal. School uniforms also keep kids focused on their education not their clothes. They also level a playing field so people dont think one person is cooler than another just because of what clothes they are wearing, they will think ones cooler than another because of their personality which is how it should be in the first place. They also prevent people from having gang sings on clothing. Also uniforms increase school unity and school spirit,

24035fd1-2019-04-18T12:22:39Z-00005-000

It is shown that students do not have expression when they are required to wear school uniforms. Uniforms should not be required at any type of school.

6abdbffe-2019-04-18T15:37:17Z-00004-000

Intro: we can call agree energy is important and is needed to thrive as a nation so for that reason I go neg today is because, hydraulic fracturing has been the best way to obtain energy and contributes heavily to the economy it is a more effective way to save the environment rather than less advanced ways to get natural gas and petroleum Intro part 2: There are some negative effects of fracking undoubtedly. Of course there need to be improvements like finding a way to completely minimize environmental impact but currently this is our best option in domestic energy and also a good temporary job creator while we explore other energy avenues. Solar energy is generally useless currently as the most high tech panels are only reaching a little above 30% efficiency while wind energy requires certain conditions and windmills. Not saying they can't be improved but until they are fracking is our best option until renewable sources are optional and fully functional. 1.Direct Economic Impact "The direct benefit of increasing oil and gas production includes the value of increased production attributable to the technology. In 2011, the USA produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. Taking an average price of $4.24 per thousand cubic feet, that's a value of about $36 billion, due to shale gas alone. "The Yale study group also looked at the potential benefit to consumers of replacing oil consumption with natural gas by converting fleets from gasoline and diesel to compressed gas or LNG. The math works like this - It takes 6 mcf of gas to get the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. The authors assume an average natural gas price of $5 per mcf (nearly double today"s price) and an average oil price of $100 per barrel (about $20 more than today). Thus, you need $30 worth of natural gas to replace $100 of oil, a savings of $70 per barrel. Replacing just 1 million barrels per day of oil demand with natural gas would save $70 million a day, or nearly $26 billion a year. 2.More efficient then coal According to the Environmental Protection Agency, natural gas-fired electricity generates half the carbon dioxide of coal-fired production. It is also cheaper than coal when it comes to usage 3.Can help with foreign issues/relations "Fracturing has eliminated the need for natural-gas exports from Iran, removing Iran"s ability to use energy diplomacy as a means to strengthen its regional power or to buttress its nuclear aspirations. Shale gas will also ease American and Chinese dependence on Middle Eastern natural-gas supplies, limiting the incentives for geopolitical and commercial competition between the two largest consuming countries and providing both with new opportunities to diversify their energy supply away from coal"whose carbon footprint, air particulate and mercury pollution, and water use burdens are far higher than those of natural gas. 4.Uses less water 90% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid is water, and around 5 to 7% sand. Most of the alleged chemicals in frack fluid are slickeners. Hydraulic fracturing surprisingly uses less water. Fracking requires just 0.6 to 5.8 gallons of water per million Btu of energy produced. By comparison, "renewable" and "sustainable" corn-based ethanol requires 2,510 to 29,100 gallons per million Btu of usable energy. Biodiesel from soybeans consumes 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per million Btu. Also, in a study of 200 water wells near fracking sites, the water quality stayed the same before and after except in one case. The myth about fracking causing earthquakes has not been confirmed. 5.Fracking directly doesn"t cause leaks "The process of fracking is not the problem, but rather poor maintenance. 6 to 7% percent of wells are built incorrectly, causing the leaks. A mobile water evaporator, for example, can eliminate the wastewater before it leaks. So basically a solution would be to ensure better construction of the wells and improve maintenance not remove fracking. 6.Fracturing can continue to provide jobs "There are 1.7 million jobs supported by fracking, and jobs will increase to 3 million by the end of the decade Examples of jobs provided, providing tax revenues to the government and creating much-needed high-paying American jobs. Engineering and surveying, construction, hospitality, equipment manufacturing and environmental permitting etc. "$2.5 trillion in cumulative federal, state and local tax receipts between 2012 and 2035. - "Looking at GDP growth, the IHS study found that, 'the shale gas contribution to GDP was $76.9 billion in 2010, will increase to $118 billion by 2015, and will nearly triple to $231 billion in 2035,' all in 2010 dollars. Responses/extra things for speech 1.No ground contamination / is safe 2.Even though 90% of oil and gas wells in the United States (one million wells total) have undergone fracturing to stimulate production, there have been no confirmed cases of contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Water is safe 3.Current industry well design practices ensure multiple levels of protection between any sources of drinking water and the production zone of an oil and gas well. "In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater." (Fox News, April 27, 2013) And: "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water." (Congressional testimony, May 24, 2011) "A 2011 report for the Secretary of Energy counted 19 times that water from hydraulic fracturing operations has been released, out of thousands of wells drilled. None of these instances included groundwater contamination. Hydraulic fracturing allows improved recovery of valuable energy resources and production of greater volumes of hydrocarbons from each well. The size of the area drained by a hydraulically fractured well is larger than wells that are not stimulated by the process. Therefore, fewer oil and gas wells need to be drilled if hydraulic fracturing is utilized, which in turn minimizes waste volumes and surface disturbance associated with oil and gas drilling. Scenario for if the so called spills were to happen and the low cost compared to the economic benifits "costs for a scenario that assumes 100 spills a year out of 10,000 new wells drilled each year. They figure that if 5,000 gallons of polluted hydraulic fracturing fluid were to spill into a field, the cost to scrape up a hypothetical 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and dispose of it at an offsite landfill would be on the order of $2.5 million. Furthermore, if potable water wells were polluted by hydraulic fracturing, the cost to haul in a potable water supply and drill new water wells would be about $5,000 per well. Given 100 incidents in a year, the clean-up costs associated with hydraulic fracturing accidents would be roughly $250 million. Comparing $250 million a year in phantom damages against the $100 billion in savings and economic benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that benefits exceed costs to by 400-to-1. Website links: "http://www.americanthinker.com...

62f287ad-2019-04-18T13:02:58Z-00000-000

In 2016 alone there has been 27,499 gun incidents. Of those incidents, only 2,000 were categorized by law as home invasion and defense use discharges. In the realm of background checks and mental stability, what are the requirements for acceptable requirements? Will there be psychological testing? Who will fund these background checks on a such a widespread level? The government and tax paying dollars will go into millions of dollars to establish materials and personnel able to qualify gun users who rarely use them. The world is unsafe but to carry the most extreme form of weapon out of fear is a bit troubling. Do we not live in a country with a police system? Here a few main points from psychological studies of those who carry guns: "Men who carry guns suffer from a "crisis of confidence." Gun owners tend to be angry and impulsive". "Holding a gun can make you paranoid". These studies show that gun ownership is more about ego than safety. In conclusion, guns are a necessary evil but should be allowed only to law enforcement, military, and other related professionals. Lay persons should not be allowed to own guns and the United States should not encourage nor fund a system that does. References: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... http://csgv.org...

26d40999-2019-04-18T18:23:26Z-00002-000

I will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults."http://www.theblaze.com..."Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use"http://www.mobiledia.com..."One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones."http://news.yahoo.com..."350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone "subscribers" and those who didn't have a phone,"http://health.usnews.com..."to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer."http://www.cancer.gov..."The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors"http://gizmodo.com..."It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit "non-ionizing radiation" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain"http://www.itwire.com..."Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer."http://www.bbc.co.uk..."In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls."http://www.cancer.org..."A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones."http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com..."Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer"http://www.usaweekend.com...-"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer.

8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00005-000

Argument 1: Raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment One of the greatest shortcomings of raising the minimum wages is that wage increases are often correlated with the decrease of such low-paying jobs hurting those who are supposed to be help with this wage increase. The extra money for these workers has to come from somewhere and such comes primarily from the businesses that employ them. In a 2014 study by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that a half-million jobs would be lost if the minimum wage was increased to at least $10 an hour as this debate describes. [1] If you also look at the history of minimum wage, wage hikes do reduce employment. With the very first introduction of the minimum wage at $0.25, according to the US Department of Labor, the minimum wage led to 30,000 to 50,000 jobs lost which accounted for around 10-13% of workers who had jobs before the minimum wage. With the implementation in Puerto Rico, 120,000 jobs were lost within the year after the law was put into place. A review of the Minimum Wage Study Commission’s report in 1981 shows that a recent 10% increase in the federal minimum wage resulted in the reduction of teen employment by 1-3%. [2] With the added labor costs, businesses would have to raise their prices, cut employee hours and benefits, cut workers, or in the 21st century replace them with computers, machines and robots. Take for example BAXTER, a robot that costs less than the average worker’s salary at $25,000 capable of doing many unskilled jobs using pennies worth of electricity to operate [7]. Sure, it may not be as versatile as your average minimum wage worker, but if you look at computers, they developed from a programmer’s play thing in the 60’s to literally integrated into everything in society within a matter of decades. The Bank of England predicted that within the next 10 to 20 years, robots will take over 80 million jobs in the United States leaving those who are only capable of simple tasks out of the job market. By raising the federal minimum wage, you are only pushing employers to utilize more robots and computers in response to their raised labor costs. [3] Argument 2: Raising the minimum wage is ineffective at decreasing poverty. According to the Census Bureau, 34% of those living in poverty do not work. And if they don’t work, such individuals would not benefit from a minimum wage increase. And pertaining to my previous argument, if the minimum wage was increased, there will be less jobs inflating the percentage of people who will not benefit from a wage hike. [5] Another issue with raising the federal minimum wage is the fact that cost of living varies by state. The states where the cost of living is lower would be negatively affected by unnecessarily raising costs of businesses in areas where poverty is minimal. This map below illustrates areas where costs of living are high and low. [4] In addition, most minimum wage earners don’t even live in poverty. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is around $53,000. [6] Conclusion: I have proven that not only would increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 or above would be ineffective in reducing poverty, it would hurt businesses and ultimately the minimum wage workers through unemployment. Sources: [1] https://www.epionline.org... [2] http://object.cato.org... [3] http://money.cnn.com... [4] http://www.cnbc.com... [5] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [6] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org... [7] http://www.rethinkrobotics.com...

d0a9155a-2019-04-18T19:00:24Z-00002-000

I believe marijuana should be legal ONLY on certain terms. The certain terms being to help with a disease, such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, etc. Now, this marijuana isn't smoked, it's taken orally. It's for cancer patients whom suffer nausea and vomiting; It helps reduce both problems. Some cancerous treatments cause those effects. For epilepsy, it helps reduce stress. For AIDS patients, it helps gain appetite, which allows them to gain weight. Marijuana should only be used medically, whether than to just be using it. People react differently when induced on marijuana -- Some contain themselves, acting mellow...Some act wild and out of control. My real argument is: Marijuana should be used medically, and medically ONLY, because if it were just legal and any one could use it, it would be JUST like if it were illegal. People would still lace it with other drugs and hallucinogens, people would still kill over it, and etc. [What I said in the comments, basically.] I'm in between about it. Allowing it be legal, could be a pro and a con; Along with being illegal, pro and con.

8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00003-000

First of all, I am perfectly clear with the U.S. ideas, since i have lived there for a substantial amount of time. Second, the resolution is not U.S. specific, it states a "democratic society" the U.S. however cannot be a model of this situaiton becuase it does not allow all members of their society to vote. The U.S. does not allow children to vote; who could be more educated than most voters. With this being stated, the U.S. cannot be a consideration for it does not represent all of the indiaviduals in a society. Without the U.S., my opponent cannot find a specific democratic society to prove his arguement while i have proven that the aff must prove this in any society which he has not. My opponent believes that prison always rehabilitates however, there are always circumstances of this not being true. My opponent's rebuttle to my first contention just soley address the U.S. system; which is inconsisnent because the U.S. is not a true democracy so my first contention stands. My opponent's rebuttle to my second contention does not realize that my second contention simply states that the Affirmative must prove this consistent in all societies, while he only sticks to the U.S., which is not a pure democratic society. My opponent's rubttle to my third contention is that it is contridictory, which i concede. So i my 3rd contention doesnt stand. My opponent's rebuttle to my 4th contention is that i am soley focused on semantics and ought= logical consequence. However he did not show how the variation of ought in serious situation is invalid. So either, my opponent finds this resolution unserious, or does not understand what oweing means. My opponent lacks any sort of framework, and offers no suggestions on why felons should vote. My second contention states the burdens the Aff faces which is left unaddressed. With these ideals in mind, I negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00004-000

Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with "summary offences" and "indictable offences". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered "correction" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too "untrustworthy" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: "Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders." (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons "should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define "ought" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: —used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be "obligated"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to "advise" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a "natural expectation" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the "logical consequence" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.

e650f9a4-2019-04-18T17:50:45Z-00005-000

All drugs should be legalized. If the state can tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body it means the state owns my body and I am a slave to the government. Drug use is a personal decision. A lot of different drugs have various uses - for recreation, for medicine or as a sacrament. The war on drugs has been extremely harmful; it costs a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money, has ruined the lives of countless families, and completely failed to put an end to drug use. Nor should an individual who wants to do drugs be prevented from doing so. People should be able to decide how they want to run their own lives, so long as they are not hurting others or their property.

cc812c57-2019-04-18T15:27:45Z-00007-000

Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!

e00c6428-2019-04-18T11:40:07Z-00001-000

I am going to say this again. Even though that some adults (including my parents) think that homework is needed for more practice and college preparation, I think that homework should be banned becausechildren can spendmore timewith family, be less stressed out, and have more time to explore other interests. I see children cry, I see children complain, I see parents and/or teachers yell, and I see everyone cranky, tired, upset, grumpy, and all those words that means unhappy. What causes this negativity you ask? The answer is HOMEWORK!!! Children can spend more time with family if they did not have homework at night. For example, The family could go places, ride bikes, and explore nature. “Banning homework effectively allows children to spend whatever little time they have before bed talking with their parents about their day in school and other topics.” (http://greengarageblog.org...) When it comes to family vacation time, me and my family feel a lot closer together. If I have a ton of homework, I would spend less time bonding with my family. Homework causes stress because sometimes it takes you a long time to finish. Homework also causes lack of sleep meaning that you will stay up late at night working on homework and getting less sleep. Then the next day you can be tired and grumpy and you fall asleep in class. You could get in trouble by your teacher if you fall asleep in class. You can also be too tired to participate in school activities and class then you may get very bad grades. “Homework causes stress in many students. Homework takes time, and it keeps students up late at night getting the work done. The loss of sleep makes it hard to concentrate during class because students are so tired. I once stayed up until midnight and wound up very tired when morning arrived. It was hard to focus on my lessons. As a student, I think sleep is more important than doing homework. Students study during the day at schools and academies, so there is no reason that we have to get homework. Many schools have a one-hour rule, but with multiple classes and each teacher assigning one hour of homework, you end up with hours of work to do at home. Students in advanced levels get even more work than the students in basic classes.” (http://www.debate.org...) If you have too much homework you do not have enough time for hobbies or other interests like, playing sports or art classes. Having other interests are pretty important. Why? Because, if you have an interest, like pottery for example, and you want to have that job when you grow up, you can get an after school class there and when you grow up, you got the job. “Most students hate homework with a passion and agree it should be banned. Yet, there are ethical elements making people think twice about giving students assignments to complete at home. Even from a professional view there are reasons why banning homework would make sense. Parents, students, and educators may agree to an extent that such assignments may not be as effective. Why so? There are school districts that already have a ban and claim things have gotten easier.” (https://www.tcnjstudentactivities.com...) Even many teachers believe that homework should be banned because it&risqué;s a positive thing. Just think about it. If your child has 3 or 6 homework assignments, then your child not only would they not get to spend time with their families, but will not have time to be a kid. Think about how homework could affect your child in the future when they grow up. Some people think that homework is necessary because children need more practice and it prepares them for college. Part of the reason from my parent&risqué;s point of view of why homework should not be banned is because parents (including my parents) need to know what is going on in the classroom. Parents feel like they need to be more involved in their child&risqué;s education. To other parents who want their children to have homework every day, homework is a way that teachers, parents, and students to communicate. Teachers need to be more accountability in the classroom. Not only does homework could improve your child&risqué;s handwriting and reading skills, but it is more of a bonding experience. Homework gives you extra practice until your child is becoming confident. But, there are some parents and/or children around the world in different countries and different races who are taking all or most of the fun, positive things about homework and turning it into an actual, physical, negative, and realistic problem which can seriously cause more conflict with one family member to another and becomes less of a bonding experience. If this conflict goes on any longer, parents and children around the world not only will children stay up all night working on homework, but will also become enemies when it comes to homework. Even though that some adults (including my parents) think that homework is needed for more practice and college preparation, I think that homework must be banned becausechildren should spend more timewith family, be less stressed out, and have more time to explore other interests. Plus, so that children can get their full 8 hours of sleep with no worries. I also am not asking to kill homework. I am asking homework to retire. Because, my dream is for teachers to really help their students without having or assigning homework. Would that be better? So, please. Help your child's education and prove the world that we don't need homework. I am a 15 year old, I am a freshman, and I ask you. Please,, ban homework for the common good. I am a 15 year old and I speak for children, parents, and teachers around the world. Work Cited Http://greengarageblog.org.... "5 Homework Should Be Banned Pros And Cons." Green Garage. Nap., 08 July 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2017. Should Homework Be Banned?" Debate.org. Nap., not. Web. 06 Jan. 2017. TCNJ Student Activities." Helpful Homework Writing Tricks For Witty Students. Nap., not. Web. 06 Jan. 2017. So, sorry, dude. But, just because I cannot kill homework, does not mean that there are other things to do with your education besides homework. I maybe a kid, but I have rights to say that we do not need homework. So, say what you want to say about this argument, but it does not change the fact that homework is tearing my family apart and it has to stop.

20c71039-2019-04-18T16:16:06Z-00001-000

P1) There are many people who are untrustworthy and lack good intentions that are not in jail, you do not need to be convicted to posses those traits. http://www.legalaffairs.org... P2) Grant and Harding are often regarded as some of the worst presidents overall. Grant, while well intentioned, did not pay attention to what was going on in his office and that let scandals happen. Harding was irresponsible and also did not pay attention to what the people in his office were doing, thus also letting scandals occur. http://topics.nytimes.com... http://www.usnews.com... P3) Your source seems to be describing "tyranny of the majority" in regards to enhancing minority interests. This is when the majority seems to take over the minority point of view, and it is perceived that the direct vote would make this worse. This is incorrect because: "State winner-take-all statutes enable a mere plurality of voters in each state to control 100% of a state"s electoral vote, thereby extinguishing the voice of all the other voters in a state." and "Suppressing the voice of a state"s minority is, by definition, an example of "tyranny of the majority." The state-by-state winner-take-all rule does not prevent a "tyranny of the majority" but instead is an example of it." http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... A direct vote will still maintain a two party system. "Today, 100% of the states conduct a direct popular vote for Governor. Yet, after over 5,000 direct popular elections for Governor since 1789, the two-party system has yet to collapse." and this is because "The two-party system is, in fact, sustained by the plurality-vote rule"not the state-by-state winner-take-all rule." http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... Regarding the federal system of government your source says that the Electoral College was made to "represent each State's choice for the presidency". However: "A state"s political "identity" is based on how all its citizens voted"not just how a plurality voted." A direct vote would "give voice to every voter in every state, as opposed to treating the minority within each state as if it did not exist." http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...

20c71039-2019-04-18T16:16:06Z-00005-000

P1) Voting directly allows everyones vote to be counted. Currently the electoral college system is used as a "compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens" (archives). The winner of the popular vote in a state gets all of the electoral votes for that state (thisnation). It is not fair that the voters who voted for another candidate do not actually get their vote counted. http://www.archives.gov... http://www.thisnation.com... P2) The people should be able to directly vote for whomever they wish to lead the country without having the government monitoring them. The electoral college was originally created because the Founders did not trust that the public could make a good decision on their own and needed Congress to also take part. http://www.thisnation.com... C:The President of the United States should be elected by the direct vote of the people.

e645636d-2019-04-18T18:47:44Z-00001-000

My opponents argument is that there are other things that people do that take practice and/or physical labor, but never does he say why dance isn't a sport. Sport - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature; does this not apply to dance? The Contender points out that construction workers require what I said is needed to be an athlete. Usually, if you think about a sport, you think about practicing that sport until perfection. You do not need to practice being a construction worker. I agree that musicians must practice a lot, but the type of practice is different, but I am assuming some would say that the marching band is a sport.

8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00007-000

Your argument is flawed. If someone bumps into you, You do not shoot them. That would be first-degree murder. Concealed-Carry holders rarely/never do this, They commit crimes 14% less than police officers. I'm not in favor of anyone purchasing guns, I believe in background checks, Which we already have.

8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00009-000

I believe in concealed carry self-defense, And the right to protect against a tyrannical government with firearms. If you have a convincing argument, Try to change my mind. If you are not going to finish rounds and forfeit, Please do not accept this debate. Hope this is a good one!

573b89ce-2019-04-18T17:08:54Z-00000-000

I agree that a lot of people in the world have difficulties with communication skills without the presence of social networks in their life. So if that people have problems, there is nothing to say about children. They have just been surfing the Web from the cradle. Children should direct their energy to education because education takes a special and very important place in the 21th century generation lives. Children should spend their leisure time improving weaknesses and developing strengths instead of liking new photos and giving comments. I suppose that life has a negative impact on child's self-confidence, he\she becomes more dependent on other people's opinions. Moreover, social networking means spending a lot of time in front of computer. Thus, children depending on social networks have health problems. They are just sitting in one position during a long time, therefore there is a chance to get spinal column problems. This period of lifetime is also important because of the formation of young organism and during this time it's necessary to lead not sedentary but active lifestyle. Consequently, if we want to raise socially developed, self-confident, active, healthy generation, we should limit the access of children to social networks.

573b89ce-2019-04-18T17:08:54Z-00003-000

As a 15 year old, I have grown up in a world where social networks were not only invented, but improved upon. Through the many different kinds of social networks, whether they be picture sharing, status updaters, or whatever else, I'm able to keep in contact with people that I don't see everyday, or even at all. For example, Omegle, a website that allows strangers to converse with each other, gives me the opportunity to meet people from around the world. And if we have a good conversation, apps like Kik or Yahoo Messenger allow me to talk to that person at a later time, which can easily lead to a lifelong friendship. Also, on apps/websites like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, I can see what family members who live out of town, state, or even country are up to, and comment on these postings. Plus, I can see what my favorite celebrities or even the government are doing as well. And to finish this round, I'll present an educational point. With most of these apps, the abilities to discuss things from school, work on projects, or compare answers on homework from long distances is present. So while there may be cons, as you already stated and others, the overall pros weigh them out. Especially considering the fact that not all younger teens are the same.

5b95326a-2019-04-18T16:00:23Z-00004-000

Gay marriage shouldn't be legal. It destroys the original purpose of marriage: to breed and raise children. A child needs both feminine and masculine influence for the best possible upbringing. A gay couple doesn't have the balance that a hetero does. Domestic partnership and adoption is a better alternative. Redefining marriage would be the undoing of over 1000 years of tradition and family structure. Sources: http://www.mercatornet.com... http://dailysignal.com... http://www.frc.org... (Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage)

2de92dce-2019-04-18T13:10:23Z-00002-000

I will not rebut your points in this round, as that would be unfair considering that I go second. In Apologia, The main goal of religion, in the eyes of religious officials (i.e. clergy, imams, pastors) is to convert souls. While there is definitely an aspect of business to religion, because everyone needs to survive, I believe that the role of business is less important to religion than the keeping of said religion itself. 1. Think of the religious leaders who were tortured or have died for their faith (John Huss, John Wycliffe, John the Baptist, Richard Wurmbrand, etc.) . If business was equal or greater than faith, then very few would be martyred. They would recant or capitulate when faced with extreme adversity. 2. I know many pastors who don't earn enough to be a pastor full time, but continue to preach out of dedication to the ministry. My own church's pastors have taken several paycuts. 4. Sure, religions have to be profitable, or at least break even, to survive. However making money is not the all-consuming desire for many religions. Look at people like Mother Teresa and Hindu and Buddhist teachers, who live in extreme poverty. Buddhism itself is based on rejecting material wealth. 5. 'What is the primary purpose of your religion? Religion in general has many purposes, most of them dealing with forming and maintaining relationships: with God or Goddess, with gods and goddesses, with our ancestors, with the spirits of Nature, with our families and communities.'- Josh Beckett, a high-ranking Druid priest. 6. Pope Francis- 'Money has to serve, not rule'. In conclusion, just because religion can be profitable does not mean it stands on the same level as faith and conversion in the eyes of the champions of each respective faith. (I assume rebuttals in Round 2?)

351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00005-000

1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement Con main argument so far is cost. Criminal justice is always expensive, but citizens think justice makes it worthwhile to prosecute serious crimes despite the cost. We should be willing to pay what it takes to obtain justice. Still, the claim that life sentences are cheaper is false. There are three elements of cost involved with a death penalty: 1. The court costs properly associated with extra scrutiny The claimed savings supposes that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole can be imposed without extra scrutiny. In fact, if there is any savings at all, it is small. Only about 6% of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project involved death row inmates. [4] They are apply a high level of scrutiny to crimes that would include life without parole. Moreover, inmates convicted of life without parole are certainly going to want to file every appeal possible to get the sentence reduced, and the government is obliged to pay the costs of the prosecution and the defense in those cases. The appeals in such case can go on for the life of the inmate. 2. The court costs incurred unreasonably in defending the laws that permit execution Much of the current costs of pursuing he death penalty involves challenges to the death penalty itself. Courts eager to overturn the death penalty are allowing appeals on such grounds as the drug used for the lethal injection must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. [8. http://www.truth-out.org...] The wording of the present resolution eliminates challenges to the death penalty itself, which can accomplished by legislation. 3. The costs of confining inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security The main costs are actually in housing the inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security confinement. Death row mainly involves a higher level of security, and that includes single-occupant cells rather than two-inmate cells. The premise of the cost savings is that murderers sentenced to life imprisonment rather than execution are safer, and hence may be mixed with the general inmate population. There are no grounds for that assumption. The convicted killer has a free pass to kill inmates or guards, or to escape and kill civilians. No extra penalty is available to deter such action, and data [5] shows there is serious threat. Con has offered as a solution to the problem of "free pass" killings is that extra-high security confinement be used to prevent it. That's exactly the cost that eliminating the death penalty is alleged to save. California is used as an example of the high costs. Virtually no one has been executed in California, due to obstructions sustained by California Courts. Consequently, nearly all inmates are kept in high security until they die of natural causes. Actually carrying out executions reduces those costs substantially. Ohio, for example, as much lower costs because they actually perform executions. A California official said, “They are much more willing to exercise their capital punishment system [in Ohio] than California, thus alleviating one of the pressures that our state wrestles with,” [9. http://www.bloomberg.com... ] The net result is a minor cost increase is suffered by extra scrutiny, but very substantial savings are obtained by not having to maintain the inmate in maximum security for a lifetime. The death penalty saves money. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal I cited the case of parents executed in front of their children by a contract killer, and asked if justice demand the death penalty. Con brushed aside the question and said that being confined for life was punishment enough. Well, who gets to ultimately decide what is adequate? Juries decide when justice demands the death penalty. [10. http://abcnews.go.com...] In a democracy, the public ought to decide. About two-thirds of the states have the death penalty. As to life being worse, even serial killers are willing to plea bargain to get rid of the possibility of a death sentence. Neither the public nor the killers are confused about the issue. 2+. Execution saves innocent lives Con has not presented a single case of an innocent person being freed. I carefully spelled out why the 17 cases were people who would not necessarily have been executed, and even the Innocence Project itself makes no claim of lives saved. Even though no cases of wrongful executions are established, I granted that there were likely a few. Con cites the page I referenced as having no killings by escapees after 1989. There are, however, killing of guards and inmates after that date, and those count as unnecessary deaths. However, I had noted that the page was an incomplete list. A web search reveals many recent cases. in 2008 an escape killed his wife and child http://www.denverpost.com... in 1997 an escapee killed his wife http://www.sacbee.com... in 2010, two escaped murderers killed an elderly couple http://www.blogforarizona.com... in 1999 a convicted murder killed a prison guard http://amarillo.com... I found eight additional cases of convicted murderers who escaped being recaptured before they killed again. Con's claim that modern technology precludes escape is wrong. No one keeps a careful list, so there are probably many more lives lost in avoiding executions. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics Con cites one case of a conviction that was overturned under scrutiny and no recent cases of false executions. Better forensics does not reduce the number of murderers caught and subject to execution. I eliminates false convictions, but DNA provides solid evidence to convict many others who would have gone free in past times. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Con claims that automobiles provide a benefit in return for the 30,000 innocent lives lost, but he fails to see a benefit to executions. A primary benefit is that justice is done, but it also saves the lives of those the convicted would subsequently kill, it deters murder particularly by the incarcerated, it saves substantial amounts of money on holding murderers for life, and plea bargains save money, solve cases, and provide closure to victims families. 5+. Justice deters crime Con argues that it is Japanese culture that produces their low crime rate, not their use of the death penalty. But what is it about the culture that lowers crime rates? I don't see what racial minorities have to do with it. It isn't the death penalty by itself, but rather that the society as a whole cares a great deal about providing justice, and justice in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Con points out that foreigners in Japan commit more crimes. Indeed, foreigners are unlikely to come from a culture so concerned with administering true justice, so they are more likely believe they can get away with commiting a serious crime. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining Con argues plea bargaining can also occur under a life sentence. Right, "Plead guilty and we will give you a Kindle in your life sentence without parole. Otherwise go to trial and risk losing the Kindle." The prospect of death is more compelling. The leverage is so great that it alone is reason enough for having a death penalty. It works even if the death penalty is rarely carried out, because the downside to the felon is so great.

351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00000-000

Thank you, Roy, for posting your final argument. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal My opponent points out that because the community favors the death penalty, the lack of a death penalty would require a dangerous non-democratic elite. However, there is another alternative: the death penalty should not be legal, so therefore the people should not supprot it. Democracy is not inherently right; such an idea would commit the is-ought fallacy. During much of America's history, the majority supported slavery; does that mean that slavery "should" have been legal? The "should" in the resolution implies that my goal in this debate is to explain why the people should stop supporting the death penalty. If my opponent is allowed to assume that with a legal death penalty comes an overhaul of the system to eliminate wasteful trials, then I am allowed to assume that the people should oppose the death penalty, and therefore the death penalty should be illegal. My opponent has no response regarding the risk of 5-4 court decisions. Additionally, regarding the "safeguards against wrongful executions," my opponent seems to want to disassemble many components of the trial process; would such revision continue to have support from the Supreme Court, given how shaky they already are? 2+. Execution saves innocent lives With my opponent's intentions of executing prisoners with little time for the Innocence Project, the 17 freed prisoners would indeed have been executed. The Innocence Project does not make this claim because they are not aware of my opponent's plans. Regarding the ten executions listed, the site claims that they are wrongful, but have yet to be confirmed by the state; this makes it rather unlikely that any of them were proper executions. My opponent incorrectly assumes that 35 is an upper bound, but this does not include the unknown number of innocents executed that were not caught by the Innocence Project, the state's revision process (which has already been sourced as imperfect), and the ten infamous cases. 35 is instead more likely a lower bound. My opponent argues that in a life sentence, there will be murders of inmates and guards; however, he has never given an example of this under maximum security. He has only used numerous examples from medium or minimum security. I was never expecting a list of deaths in maximum security prison, but we don't even have a single example from which to conclude anything. My opponent's final comparison of eight to 33 assumes that all mistaken executions are later realized, which is almost definitely false, and that those 33 prisoners were under the same security that someone my opponent would give the death penalty would be under, which is also false. My claim of "increased security" was mistaken by my opponent as "supermax," but only maximum security, which is already legal, is necessary, making this point irrelevant. Concluding this contention, switching prisoners from the death sentence to a life sentence under maximum security would not increase the murder count at all, because all of the examples of breakout murders occured under sub-maximum security. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics It may be more difficult for a framing or bribery to work, but it is far from impossible. I already cited a case in which it nearly succeeded; had a few fewer mistakes been made, it would have succeeded. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error My opponent again compares the risk of driving to the risk of execution. Since Round 1, I've pointed out that the use of automobiles benefits everybody in the world outstrips the benefit of executing murderers "by factors easily past the billions." Anything true for one is a far cry from guaranteed for the other. This is somewhat of a subjective point, so direct debating is difficult. The cost argument I mentioned in this contention, although it is also its own separate contention, to be discussed later. 5+. Justice deters crime My opponent claims that "the death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society." However, if we look at many Western countries and states, we could also see that the lack of a death penalty is consistent with a civilized just society. This isn't relevant to whether the death penalty deters crime at all. Regarding the statistics that I cited, their key points were the conclusions of criminologists and a study by the United Nations, neither of which would have the problems that my opponent supposes. Comparisons made between states compared bordering states with similar rural and urban makeups. My quote from the FBI that "[i]n no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty" goes unchallenged. Constant-culture studies are not as relevant to the death penalty in the United States as a study of effects in America itself, and we apparently don't see the death penalty as a deterrent, which is all that matters. 1-. Costs Death row itself is, apparently, more expensive than the maximum security that nobody can seem to break out of. A life sentence doesn't need death row security, but only maximum security. My opponent points to things that inflate the costs, but through much of this debate, I've been using statistics from Texas, which my opponent admits has relatively inexpensive executions, making those points moot. It is true that I never made any repsonse to defend supermax security, but that is because, as I said last round, supermax security is unnecessary when maximum security provides enough security to prevent escapes and murders. Plea bargaining from the death penalty may help with the costs slightly, but by the millions? Unlikely. As for the freeing of police, they would already be freed from the death penalty trials that occupy so much of the court's time, as I have already cited. In conclusion, the death penalty is unnecessarily expensive and kills more innocent people than it saves, with benefits not worth the trouble. Thank you, RoyLatham, for this debate. Good luck with the rest of the tournament.

351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00003-000

I appreciate Con's vigorous debate. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal How do we know what is just? I claim that a contract killer who tells a child he is going to murder the child's parents, and then follows through and does so, deserves to be executed. Con claims that it only seems that killer deserves to be executed, but maybe he should not. There are individuals who refuse to convict any person of any crime, and say so. People who refuse to convict anyone are excused from jury duty. The society as a whole should decide the parameters of justice. “Gallup's annual Crime Survey finds that 64% of Americans continue to support the use of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 29% oppose it -- continuing a trend that has shown little change over the last seven years.” [11. http://www.gallup.com... ] That is why a death penalty should be legal. Whether it is just in a particular case is the job of a jury to decide within the laws democratically established. The jury's options are heavily constrained to prevent arbitrary use of the death penalty. That was instituted by a series of Supreme court decisions. [12. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ] As now constituted, the death penalty is judged by the Court to have the necessary safeguards. Con claims that the death penalty is “more barbaric” than life in prison without possibility of parole. I disagree. Barbaric implies unduly harsh. A just penalty is not unduly harsh. It is civilized. " Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death. " ~ Supreme Court of the United States of America [13. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...] 2+. Execution saves innocent lives Con argues that 17 cases of people freed from death row as a result of scrutiny should be somehow counted as wrongly executed. Even The Innocence Project does not make that claim. They were not executed at all, for the reason that extra scrutiny is applied, both by the court system and by independent concerned citizens. I grant that there have probably been a handful of wrongful executions among the 14,000 carried out post-War, but it is telling that so far Con has not cited any, despite his implication that they are common. Regarding murders committed by those given life as an alternative to execution, I agree it is possible to hold prisoners in effective supermax confinement. There are three problems with that: Supermax confinement is extremely expensive. It is much more expensive than ordinary “maximum” security. [14. http://solitarywatch.com... ] The cost savings claimed for abolishing the death penalty are obtained by mixing inmates in the general population. “ Supermax won't be used because it is too expensive, and because judges will further downgrade sentences. Supermax solitary confinement is likely to be ruled cruel and unusual punishment. [15. http://solitarywatch.com... ] If it is not, it should be. I am saying that the death penalty is not (the supreme Court has already so ruled), but that denying human contact is. Society should not keep people alive and then make them suffer for their whole lives. So long as large numbers of inmates are given a free pass to kill fellow inmates guards, and victims during escapes, it will cost innocent lives. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics Challenged to provide examples of wrongful executions, Con point to a list of ten cases. However, none of the ten were found to be wrongful executions. The anti-death-penalty site that lists them only claims that they ought to be given a close look. The site presents a one-sided account of each case, and then implies that the courts that reviewed the cases were incompetent to judge. In addition none of the death penalty verdicts in the ten cases were rendered after the onset of the CSI effect, with accompanying heighten jury awareness of the importance of forensic evidence. One of the executions was in 2000 and one in 2004, but the cases were old. In the last round, Con added a case of a person found innocent and freed before execution. That is a consequence of extra scrutiny. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Con argues, “I do not see whatever death prevention my opponent claims being worth spending millions of extra taxpayer's dollars.” The public gets to make that decision, and two-thirds are pro death penalty. Even more money could be saved by having prompt executions without the lengthy appeals and extra expense of having death row inmates in expensive high-security confinement. If cCon's argument is true, it favors the death penalty on an expedited basis. 5+. Justice deters crime Con agrees, “A culture can lower crime rates if its people follow strict moral guidelines.” I think moral guidelines cannot be strict if punishment is not appropriate to the crime. Japan shows that a civil and moral society uses the death penalty when it is the appropriate punishment. One method that avoids cross-culure analysis is to examine what happens when the death penalty is removed or instituted in a society. “ Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. … Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there.” [16. http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org... ] “ the Texas murder rate ...had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent [with the death penalty]. ... the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County [where] the annual number of ... murders has plummeted from ... -- a 72 percent decrease.” [17. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...] When the Supreme court issued a moratorium on the death penalty from 1972-76, homicide rate rose dramatically. “The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.” [17] The savings in human life includes the killings by convicts give a free pass, and those deterred. The numbers are very large compared to the vanishingly small numbers of wrongful executions. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining I never argued that justice demands that the death penalty always be applied. Judges, prosecutors, and juries all have a say in when it is appropriate. Plea bargaining can be appropriate in some circumstances, and I gave examples. Con asserts without proof that the results of plea bargaining, such as the Green River killer's many murders, might have been accomplished by “other means.” I maintain that the incentive provided by execution is unmatched. 1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement Con's main argument so far is cost. He just argued that not matter how many innocent lives are saved, it isn't worth the expense to the taxpayer. Con did not dispute my cost analysis with data, but relied upon an anti-death-penalty site to opine that the costs were just due to "execution." Cost analysis by the Florida Senate showed the costs strictly associated with the death penalty were a small fraction of that claimed, and could be further reduced by adopting methods used in Texas. [18. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...] There are additional savings from deterrence.

9154adc3-2019-04-18T19:42:03Z-00004-000

Immoral = involving right and wrong I would agree that having a 7 course meal in front of a starving family to be immoral. However, the debate topic is generally speaking about the obese excluding those who have metical conditions. I'll just start off by stating a few things and you can argue your side. 1) Society generates our views of moral and immoral. So what a southern American citizen, like myself, views immoral might be completely different from a citizen in Hong Kong, or even New York. 2) Time changes our social rules. Now, we have a very specific scale of obesity according to height and gender. Centuries ago, there was no such thing. In fact, being "plump" (now considered obese) was a sign of wealth and class. So in that aspect, if you were starving, you were a peasant, which was acceptable. 3) You're saying that instead of eating that 7 course meal that far surpasses what our society says we "need," donate money to charity so other people can eat and be healthy as well, right? Every culture, and every individual, has a standard of living. I bet you live in a house or apartment, probably have furniture, a t.v, a nice bed, refrigeration, a/c, etc. You can probably live on a quarter of the expenses your living on now and still be better off than those that are starving. However, that is all you know, that is how you were brought up and anything less would be uncomfortable (just an example). Those over seas, in Africa, who are starving know little more than being starving. I'm not saying that is right, or wrong. I'm simply stating that the definition of right and wrong changes. Basically, immoral is a word that changes by culture and over time. My country condones luxury living first, and then giving to charity. Other cultures differ, which is similar to the over all principal of morality. There is no concrete definition for being moral.

9154adc3-2019-04-18T19:42:03Z-00001-000

As part of my opponent's last response he wrote: "If the obese can sacrifice food for the starving then Pro has contradicted himself by proving enough land to feed both. Not only is this a contradiction, it simply isn't true. As of now we have plenty of food and farmland to raise food for more than everyone. " Firstly, it is not a contradiction as I only said the problem could be "alleviated" if the obese ate less and secondly, I'm afraid there isn't plenty of food to go round, that's why food prices are at a record high and at least 100 million people are being pushed further into poverty and hunger as a result. Source: . http://www.wfp.org... My opponent continued… "Not only is food important for everyone, but so is a job. This just shows Darwins theory of "survival of the fittest" more plausible. " I have no argument with that statement but then my opponent wrote… "We are no different from the animal kingdom, the strongest and most prosperous will prevail. " I do take issue with this, however. As my opponent stated, food is important and so is a job, and it is employment that sets humans apart from the animal kingdom. We evolved into the planet's dominant species though co-operating with one another. Instead of each individual foraging for themselves, we formed tribes and introduced division of labour whereby only some of the members were responsible for the provision of food, leaving the others to mine for metal ores, make tools, construct buildings, etc. There were two things that made this co-operation possible. The first was the ability to communicate sophisticated concepts using speech and the second was a code of laws based on common moral values (one of which is not to allow any fat people go around stealing grub off the kids! ) As the human race developed, the physically strongest in society became less important than the most intelligent, to a point now where the situation is completely reversed. Here's another one of my scenarios to illustrate the point: A 22 year-old student rocks up in a pub in downtown Athens, Georgia. He is a big lad, 6'1" and 150lbs, because he eats more than some obese people. He takes a stool at the bar and as he guzzles down his domestic beer he notices a couple of attractive girls and decides to impress them by picking a fight with some guys over by the pool table. Just as the student is about to throw his first punch, everybody's attention is attracted by the howl of the highly tuned V8 engine of a brand new Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder which pulls up outside. Out steps a tall, dark, handsome company director / revolutionary socialist. He walks into the pub, takes a table near the pretty girls' and orders a bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape. He notices the young ladies' glasses are almost empty, so he politely invites them to join him, explaining in dulcet English tones that he couldn't possibly finish the bottle himself and legally drive back to the Foundry Park Inn and Spa, where he is staying in the Presidential Suite. The girls accept his offer and as they chat, they are impressed by his intellect and enthused by his ideas for socio-economic justice based on a mass redistribution of wealth and his plans to end to world hunger by shaming the obese into not being so damn greedy all the time. By this time, our student friend has forgotten his quarrel at the pool table and looks on jealously as the debonair Englishman leaves and heads back to the hotel with the girls. Unfortunately, the Lambo only has two seats so one of the girls has to catch the bus, but never mind that, the point is, it wasn't physical prowess that prevailed in this situation, it was personality and intelligence – that's what separates humans from animals. A summary of opponents penultimate point were that anyone that eats more than they need to survive, rather than stay healthy, would be immoral according to my reasoning. I don't accept that, we all have the right to eat enough to be healthy, but I do accept that people who eat food in excess, just out of pure greed, are also acting immorally, even though they may not be obese. His final point was that some people can become overweight for medical reasons, a point which I conceded in Round 1.

f070d8a6-2019-04-18T14:46:30Z-00002-000

I ask my opponent to more clearly word the resolution (e. g. "teachers should not have the absolute right to freedom of speech while in the classroom") in the next round so I can provide my arguments. I am going to assume that the BoP is shared.

2a0872c5-2019-04-18T11:42:34Z-00002-000

Preserve the freedom of religion and belief from government tyranny. Keep politicians out of church matters and the private beliefs of people in their homes.

d267a5af-2019-04-18T18:07:23Z-00007-000

To answer your first argument, marijuana is not the only cure for these illnesses. In particular, Prozac (fluoxetine) is a similar antidepressant that gets the job done and does not have the multiple negative side effects of marijuana including mental impairment, memory loss, mouth disease, etc.(www.drugs.com/prozac.html...) Your second argument seems to be that if legalized, crime related to illegal use will go down. You are, in fact, making a very dangerous and unwise statement. This will set a precedent of caving to pressure from the Cartels. The Cartels, seeing this, will then not only become bolder, but will turn to other black market trades to make up for lost income. This would send crime up, not down. Also, where and when is it legal to smoke marijuana in this plan? Can people simply smoke it whilst walking down the street? If yes, doesn't that cause major health risks for everyone using merely the same street as a marijuana smoker? Marijuana is too easy to become addicted to, and even recovered/ recovering addicts will have much greater temptation and relapse. This cannot be allowed to happen. We must not legalize marijuana. Check.