text
stringlengths 558
17k
|
|---|
# Vaping Pros and Cons - 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Vaping among kids is skyrocketing: addicting a new generation to nicotine and introducing them to smoking.
An Oct. 25, 2021 study found marijuana vaping by teens doubled between 2013 and 2020, and the number of minors who stated they’d vaped marijuana in the past 30 days rose from 1.6% to 8.4% in the same time.
US Surgeon General Jerome Adams declared youth e-cigarette use an “epidemic,” noting a 900% increase in vaping by middle and high school students between 2011 and 2015.
As of 2020, 19.6% of high school students used e-cigarettes, the most-used tobacco product among the age group, followed by cigars (5%). Teens who use e-cigarettes are four times more likely to try regular cigarettes than their peers who never used tobacco, and 21.8% of youth cigarette use may be attributable to initiation through vaping.
Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association, stated, “The tobacco industry is well aware that flavored tobacco products [such as e-cigarettes] appeal to youth and has taken advantage of this by marketing them in a wide range of fruit and candy flavors.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Vaping is the act of using e-cigarettes, which were first introduced in the United States around 2006. [5]
E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol vapor for inhalation. The liquid used in e-cigarettes is also known as e-liquid or vape juice. The main components are generally flavoring, nicotine, and water, along with vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol, which distribute the flavor and nicotine in the liquid and create the vapor. Popular flavorings include mint, mango, and tobacco. [3] [4] [44] [45]
E-cigarettes are also known as “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” “vaporizers,” “e-pipes,” and “electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).” Some e-cigarettes are made to resemble regular cigarettes, cigars, or pipes, while others look like pens or USB flash drives. [7] [42] [43]
The JUUL brand of e-cigarettes, a vaporizer shaped like a USB drive, launched in 2015 and captured nearly 75% of the market in 2018, becoming so popular that vaping is often referred to as “juuling.” Juul’s market popularity has since declined to 42% in 2020. [7] [8] [9] [51]
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulated e-cigarettes as a tobacco product since 2016. On Sep. 11, 2019, the Trump administration announced plans to have the FDA end sales of non-tobacco e-cigarette flavors such as mint or menthol in response to concerns over teen vaping. E-cigarette manufacturers were required to request FDA permission to keep flavored products on the market. The FDA had until Sep. 9, 2021 to make a decision. [6][46] [49]
On Sep. 9, 2021, Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock and Director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products Mitch Zeller announced that the FDA had made decisions on 93% of the 6.5 million submitted applications for “deemed” new tobacco products (“‘deemed’ new” means the FDA newly has authority to review the products but the products may already be on the market), including denying 946,000 vaping products “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use.” The FDA had taken no action on JUUL products as of Sep. 9. [55] [56] [57]
On Oct. 12, 2021, the FDA authorized the Vuse e-cigarette and cartridges, marketed by R.J. Reynolds one of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers. The move is the first time the FDA authorized any vaping product. According to a statement from the FDA, the organization “determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth.” [58]
On June 23, 2022, the FDA ordered Juul to stop selling “all of their products currently marketed in the United States.” The order included removing products currently on the market, including Juul devices (vape pens) and pods (cartridges). The following day, June 24, 2022, a federal appeals court temporarily put the ban on hold while the court reviewed Juul’s appeal. On Sep. 6, 2022, Juul settled a lawsuit brought by almost 36 states and Puerto Rico. The states and Puerto Rico accused Juul of marketing to minors. Juul admitted no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuit, but the company will have to pay $438.5 million, stop marketing to youth, stop funding education in schools, and stop misrepresenting the amount of nicotine in the products. [61] [62] [63]
Nearly 11 million American adults used e-cigarettes in 2018, more than half of whom were under age 35. One in five high school students used e-cigarettes to vape nicotine in 2018. E-cigarettes were the fourth most popular tobacco products with 4% of retail sales, behind traditional cigarettes (83%), chewing/smokeless tobacco (8%), and cigars (5%) as of Feb. 2019. The global e-cigarette and vape market was worth $15.04 billion in 2020. [1][2][8] [50]
According to the most recent CDC data (2018), 9.7% of current cigarette smokers were also current vapers, though 49.4% of current smokers had vaped at some point. Of former smokers who had quit within the last year, 25.2% were current vapers and 57.3% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit one to four years ago, 17.3% were current vapers and and 48.6% had tried vaping. Of former smokers who quit five or more years ago, 1.7% were current vapers and 9% had tried vaping. And of people who have never smoked, 1.5% were current vapers and 6.5% had tried vaping. [52]
18-29 year olds were more likely to say they vaped (17%) than smoked cigarettes, while every older age group was more likely to smoke than vape. [54]
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good.
Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.
**Background**
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more background…
|
# Defunding the Police Pros and Cons | Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
When police departments’ budgets are cut, violence and civilian injuries increase, and departments turn to “taxation by citation” to raise money.
Police officers in smaller jurisdictions, or those primarily populated by people of color, are frequently paid less. In Hillsdale, a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri, new officers earn $13.50 an hour after a probationary period, less than hourly workers at Target. Low wages force many officers to take extra jobs, leaving them tired and unprepared to deal with a high-stress police situation. David Harris, JD, University of Pittsburgh Law Professor, stated, “We should not assume that the most poorly-paid cops are the worst cops. But the chances increase that you don’t attract the best officers.”
During the 2008 recession, many police departments were forced to cut officers as federal funding decreased. In Memphis, use-of-force complaints almost doubled as officers in an understaffed department were required to work overtime.
In England and Wales, 2010 police budgets were cut, resulting in 20,592 (14%) fewer officers in 2017, and 20% more gun, knife, and serious violent crimes. The homicide rate also rose 39% from Mar. 2015 and 2019. In Mar. 2020, the Home Office acknowledged a correlation and committed to hiring 20,000 officers.
Illinois State Police Director Jonathon Monken reported an increase in fatal car accidents due to a decrease in motorcycle traffic officers after 2010 budget cuts. In order to raise funds for the department, Monken implemented a policy wherein $15 for each citation (such as a speeding ticket) written goes to the state police.
Called “citation taxation,” departments taking a cut of each citation written is a common fund-raising strategy. Such tickets often cost residents more than expected: a $100 traffic ticket cost a California resident $100 in state assessment fees, $70 in county assessment fees, $50 in court construction fees, $20 for emergency medical fees, among other fees resulting in an almost $500 ticket for rolling through a red light. While no one wants to pay a $500 traffic violation ticket, communities of color are especially hard hit and ill-equipped to pay such tickets.
Officers also write more tickets when department revenue is at stake. In St. Ann, a St. Louis suburb, speeding tickets almost tripled while the suburb’s population decreased. In New Miami Village, Ohio, 45,000 tickets were issued in 15 months to a population of about 2,000 people. If appropriately funded, police could focus on crime rather than fundraising.
**Background**
Amid the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 25, 2020, calls to “defund the police” began to populate protest signs and social media posts.
While there are multiple interpretations of “defund the police,” the basic definition is to move funding away from police departments and into community resources such as mental health experts, housing, and social workers. In the larger scope of the civil rights movement, some advocates would reallocate some police funding but keep police departments, others would combine defunding with other police reforms such as body cameras and bias training, and others see defunding as a small step toward ultimately abolishing police departments and the prison system entirely. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
According to the most recent data available, police departments received about $114.5 billion nationwide in 2017 from state and local governments, up from $42.3 billion in 1977. Police budgets have made up around 4% of total state and local budgets since 1977. About 97% of police budgets go toward operational costs such as salaries and benefits. However, individual cities or counties may allocate more funds to police departments. The 2017 Los Angeles city budget, for example, provided 23% of the budget to police, while 9% of Los Angeles county’s budget went to policing. [7] [8] [9]
In June 2020, 64% of Americans opposed the abstract idea of defunding the police, while 34% supported the movement. 60% were against reallocating police budget funds to other public health and social programs, while 39% were in favor. [10]
In Oct. 2021, 21% of American adults wanted police budgets “increased a lot” and 26% wanted budgets “increased a little,” while 9% wanted police budgets “decreased a little” and 6% “decreased a lot.” 37% said budgets should “stay about the same.” [58]
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Student debt could cause another financial crisis.
As of 2012 student loan debt was over $1 trillion dollars, and more than 850,000 student loans were in default. According to the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, student loans are “beginning to have the same effect” on the economy that the housing bubble and crash created. Former Secretary of Education William Bennett, PhD, agrees that the student loan debt crisis “is a vicious cycle of bad lending policies eerily similar to the causes of the subprime mortgage crisis.” On Feb. 3, 2012, an advisory council to the Federal Reserve also warned that the growth in student debt “has parallels to the housing crisis.” As of Jan. 2013, the rate of default on student loans hit 15.1%–a nearly 22% increase since 2007.
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Studies have shown violent video games may cause aggression, not violence. Further, any competitive video game or activity may cause aggression.
Lauren Farrar, Producer for KQED Learning’s YouTube series Above the Noise, stated: “Often times after tragic mass shooting, we hear politicians turn the blame to violent video games, but the reality is that the research doesn’t really support that claim… In general, violence usually refers to physical harm or physical acts that hurt someone– like hitting, kicking, punching, and pushing. Aggression is a more broad term that refers to angry or hostile thoughts, feelings or behaviors. So everything that is violent is aggressive, but not everything that is aggressive is violent. For example, getting frustrated, yelling, talking back, arguing those are all aggressive behaviors, but they aren’t violent. The research on the effects of violent video games and behavior often looks at these milder forms of aggressive behavior.”
A peer-reviewed study in Psychology of Violence determined that the competitive nature of a video game was related to aggressive behavior, regardless of whether the game contained violent content. The researchers concluded: “Because past studies have failed to equate the violent and nonviolent video games on competitiveness, difficulty, and pace of action simultaneously, researchers may have attributed too much of the variability in aggression to the violent content.” A follow-up study tracked high school students for four years and came to the same conclusion: the competitive nature of the games led to the increased hostile behavior.
**Background**
Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
A minimum wage increase would help to reduce race and gender inequality.
Despite representing 47% of US workers, women make up 63% of minimum wage workers. African Americans represent 12% of the US workforce, and make up 17.7% of minimum wage earners. 16% of the labor force is Hispanic, and they represent 21.5% of workers making the minimum wage. In a time when the median income for women is 78% of the national median income, and African Americans and Hispanics make 67% and 79% of the median income respectively, increasing the minimum wage is necessary to create a more equitable income distribution for disadvantaged groups.
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Dakota Access Pipeline Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline will help the economy and create thousands of jobs.
Building the pipeline is expected to create 8,000 to 12,000 new jobs and pump money into industries that manufacture steel pipes and other related materials. A Georgetown professor estimated that construction will add $129 million in annual tax revenue into local and state economies during construction. Once the pipeline is operational, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois may earn $50 million annually in property taxes and $74 million in sales taxes. The increased revenue would improve schools, roads, and emergency services in those areas. Moving oil by pipeline instead of railroad will ease transportation shortages for other major regional industries including agriculture.
**Background**
The Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) is a 1,172-mile-long pipeline to transport shale oil from the North Dakota Bakken oil fields to Patoka, Illinois, to link with other pipelines. Construction was completed in Apr. 2017 and the pipeline went into service in June 2017. [1] [3] [37]
In Apr. 2016 members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe created the Sacred Stone Camp near where the pipeline was slated to cross under the Missouri River to protest impending construction of the DAPL because of concerns about environmental impact, possible water contamination, and destruction of sacred burial grounds. Since then conflicts between demonstrators and law enforcement resulted in injuries and hundreds of arrests.
Native American tribal leaders and activists wanted President Obama to halt the DAPL, while North Dakota’s governor and two of its congressmen called on the president to approve the pipeline and end protests. [24] [25] President Obama indicated before the Nov. 8, 2016 election that alternate routes might be considered and said he would let the situation “play out for several more weeks.” [26]
In July 2016 the US Army Corps of Engineers granted the final permits for pipeline construction to Dakota Access, the subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners building the pipeline. In response the Standing Rock Sioux filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging multiple violations of federal law during the permitting process. [12] However, construction of the pipeline began as scheduled, so the tribe filed a request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction until their court case was decided. On Aug. 10, 2016, a coalition of Native American tribes and other activists began a blockade of the pipeline to prevent continued construction. [3]
As news spread of the blockade, hundreds of people began arriving at the original Sacred Stone Camp. A larger camp, known as the Oceti Sakowin Camp, was formed to house thousands of new supporters. Representatives from 300 Native American tribes, along with other allies, have joined the Standing Rock Sioux to demand the pipeline construction be halted. [2]
Since the blockade began, a series of escalating confrontations occurred between pipeline opponents, many of whom call themselves “water protectors,” and various private, local, and state law enforcement agents who have been protecting the pipeline and trying to prevent disruption of the construction.
On Sep. 3, 2016, a major escalation occurred when private security working for Dakota Access used dogs and pepper spray on a group of Native Americans and allies who walked onto an active pipeline construction site to disrupt operations. [4]
On Sep. 9, 2016, the Standing Rock Tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction was denied. In response, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, and the Department of the Interior issued a joint statement pausing construction of the pipeline, pending further review, on the federal land bordering the area where the pipeline is to be bored beneath the Missouri River. Although the government requested that Dakota Access voluntarily stop work 20 miles east or west of the Missouri River, the company continued with construction. [11]
Another major confrontation occurred on Oct. 28, 2016, when over 300 police officers in riot gear, accompanied by armored vehicles, moved in to clear an encampment and road barricades that had been set up to prevent construction of a section of the pipeline. [5] [6]
On Nov. 14, 2016, the Army Corps review concluded that permission to construct the pipeline “on or under Corps land” bordering the Missouri River could not occur until further review was undertaken, and encouraged the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s involvement in the process. [1] In response, Dakota Access filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers and continued with construction of the pipeline on lands not under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps. [12]
On Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016, a major clash occurred between law enforcement and 400 people trying to remove a road barricade set up by law enforcement to block traffic on Highway 1806 near the Oceti Sakowin encampment. Nearly 300 people were treated for injuries, some life threatening, and 26 people were taken to area hospitals. [7][8][9] According to the Morton County Sheriff ‘s Department, between when protest activity against the pipeline began and Nov. 14, 2016, at least 473 individuals were arrested. [10]
The pipeline carried oil for over 3 years before being shut down by a federal court order, pending an environmental review, in July 2020. [38]
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
A majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana.
A 2018 Gallup poll found a record-high 66% support for legalizing marijuana, up from 12% in 1969, the first year the polling company asked about marijuana. The poll first surpassed 50% support in 2011. According to Gallup, “the transformation in public attitudes about marijuana over the past half-century has mirrored the liberalization of public attitudes about gay rights and the same-sex-marriage movement.” While Democrats (72%) and Independents (67%) have been more likely to back legalization, a majority of Republicans (51%) now agree. Polls by CBS News and the AP both found that 61% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana.
The public clearly supports changing our failed anti-marijuana policies. More than half of US states have legalized medical marijuana, and 40 states took some action to relax their drug laws (such as decriminalizing or lowering penalties for possession) between 2009 and 2013.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment.
In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians.
All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Most major research institutions’ programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC).
**Background**
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background…
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Privatizing Social Security will put billions of dollars into the pockets of Wall Street financial services corporations in the form of brokerage and management fees.
Private Social Security accounts will be a boon to Wall Street, where banks and investment advisors could receive over $100 in fees for each account.
Since the number of Social Security beneficiaries is expected to grow to more than 125.7 million by 2090, Wall Street will have guaranteed access to a rapidly growing pool of customers courtesy of the federal government.
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Historic Statue Removal - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The statues do not cause racism and could be used to fight racism if put into historical context.
Author Sophia A. Nelson, JD, who notes she is the granddaughter of a slave, states that she does not ”fear 150-year-old statues of old dead white men.” Nelson argues that her classmates at Washington & Lee University “didn’t hate [black students] because there were statues of Robert E. Lee or George Washington (our nation’s first President and a slave owner) on campus. They didn’t like having black classmates because they had racist hearts. They honored racial prejudice. They harbored cultural bias. That, my friends, is what we must work toward eradicating.”
Ellis Cose, Senior Fellow at the ACLU, states that the statues should remain, with “plaques and other material in place that point out that these men were traitors, not American heroes, and that their ugly legacy haunts us still. In illuminating how vulnerable Americans have long been to ugly racial appeals, and how willfully blind we have been to racial injustice, those statues could remind us of the catastrophic consequences of not putting bigotry aside.”
Some jurisdictions have chosen to put explanatory plaques beside Confederate monuments to teach a more complete history. The plaques can not only detail the history of slavery and the Civil War, but also the white segregationist history that promoted the building of such statues to promote the revisionist Lost Cause history.
Next to the Peace Monument in Atlanta, Georgia, a plaque reads, “This monument should no longer stand as a memorial to white brotherhood; rather, it should be seen as an artifact representing a shared history in which millions of Americans were denied civil and human rights.”
Sheffield Hale, JD, President and Chief Executive of the Atlanta History Center, stated of the plaque, “I do think it gives [people] a starting point, which is sorely needed right now, in our society, as a way to deal with contentious issues. Let’s argue about the facts, let’s put them down on paper – or on a marker – and have a conversation about them.”
Geoff Palmer, Scotland’s first black professor, who disagrees with taking down the statues, warned against being distracted by the simple, concrete action of taking down statues: “We don’t want to leave this so that people looking back in 50 years will say: you know, they took the statues down, why didn’t they do something about racism?”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While the debate whether Confederate statues should be taken down has been gaining momentum for years, the issue gained widespread attention after the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter was said to have glorified the Confederate South, posing in Facebook photos with the Battle Flag of the Northern Virginia Army (also known now as the “Confederate flag,” though it never represented the Confederate States) and touring historical Confederate locations before the shooting. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The issue rose to prominence again in 2017 after an Aug. 12 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent and deadly. The rally protested the proposed removal of statues of Confederate Army Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. [5]
The Virginia statues still stood amid the protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, though they were tagged with graffiti then (and later removed on July 10, 2021). During the global Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, calls to take down the statues were met with citizens not only actively damaging or removing statues of Confederate figures, but targeting statues of slave-holding Founding Fathers in general, as well as historic monuments to Abraham Lincoln and abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [54]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 59 Confederate statues and nine markers or plaques were removed from public land in 19 US states between June 17, 2015 and July 6, 2020. The SPLC reported at least 160 monuments were removed in 2020 after George Floyd’s death, more than the prior four years combined At last count, about 704 Confederate monuments remained on public land. [14] [55]
In June 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to remove all confederate statues and bust of Roger B. Taney (the US Supreme Court Chief Justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision) from the US Capitol’s Statuary Hall. Taney’s bust was replaced with one of Thurgood Marshall. On July 13, 2022, Florida erected a statue of Mary McLeod Bethune to replace their confederate soldier statue. Bethune’s is the first state-commissioned statue of a Black person to be included in Statuary Hall. [56]
|
# DACA & the DREAM Act - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
DACA recipients are vital members of the American workforce and society.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that 900 DACA recipients were serving in the US military and 20,000 were schoolteachers, including 190 Dreamers in the Teach for America program.
The Association of American Medical Colleges said in October 2019 that the US health care system would be caught unprepared to fill the void left by deported Dreamers.
In Mar. 2020, lawyers for Dreamers seeking to uphold the program in the Supreme Court wrote, “Healthcare providers on the frontlines of our nation’s fight against COVID-19 rely significantly upon DACA recipients to perform essential work. Approximately 27,000 DACA recipients are healthcare workers—including nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physician assistants, home health aides, technicians, and other staff—and nearly 200 are medical students, residents, and physicians.”
**Background**
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an Obama administration policy implemented on June 15, 2012. DACA prevents the deportation of some undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and allows those immigrants to get work permits. The undocumented immigrants who participate in the program are referred to as Dreamers, a reference to the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) that was first introduced in the Senate on Aug. 1, 2001 by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) but did not pass. [1] [2]
The DREAM Act would have implemented similar policies as DACA via legislation instead of a presidential memo. Many versions of the DREAM Act have been introduced by both parties and have failed to pass. An effort, S.264, was introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Feb. 4, 2021 and the House passed a version, HR. 6, on Mar. 18, 2021. [3] [4] [46] [47]
In order to qualify for DACA, the undocumented immigrants are required to meet certain criteria:
under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012
have come to the United States before their 16th birthday
lived in the United States continuously from June 15, 2007 to the present
physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time of application
have come to the United States without documents before June 15, 2012 or have had their lawful status expire as of June 15, 2012
currently in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or military
have not been convicted of a felony or “significant misdemeanors” (such as DUI), or three or more misdemeanors of any kind
Enrollment in the program requires renewal every two years. [1]
About 650,000 undocumented immigrants were enrolled in DACA as of Sep. 30, 2019. The majority of Dreamers were born in Mexico (80.2%), followed by El Salvador (3.8%). The top ten countries of origin were rounded out by Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, South Korea, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina. While the majority of Dreamers are from Mexico or Central and South America, many were born in Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, and Africa. [22]
As of Mar. 31, 2022, 611,270 people were enrolled in DACA. The Migration Policy Institute estimated in 2021 that 1,159,000 people were eligible for enrollment. California was home to the most DACA recipients (174,070), with Texas (101,340) and Illinois (32,100) following. Mexico remained the most popular country of origin (494,350), followed by El Salvador (23,700) and Guatemala (16,090). DREAMers came from 26 other countries as well, including: Korea, Poland, Canada, Kenya, China, and the Dominican Republic. [45]
A 2019 Marquette Law School poll found that 53% of US adults opposed ending DACA while 37% were in favor of terminating the program. A CNN poll in 2018 found that 84% of respondents believed DACA should continue, allowing Dreamers to remain in the country; 11% thought the program should be stopped and Dreamers should be subject to deportation; and 5% had no opinion. [5] [32]
President Donald Trump rescinded DACA on Sep. 5, 2017, saying the program “helped spur a humanitarian crisis,” but federal court rulings blocked plans to end the program. After initially declining to hear an appeal from the Trump Administration, the Supreme Court heard arguments in three DACA cases on Nov. 12, 2019. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
On Mar. 27, 2020, lawyers for plaintiffs seeking to continue DACA submitted a brief to the US Supreme Court stating that “Termination of DACA during this national emergency would be catastrophic.” Their reasoning was that DACA recipients working in healthcare were essential to fighting COVID-19 (coronavirus) and that halting immigration enforcement would enable all Dreamers to comply with public health measures urging people to stay at home to slow the transmission of the virus. [31]
On June 18, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had not given adequate justification for ending the program, leaving DACA in place. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion, “The dispute before the Court is not whether [Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.” [41]
On inauguration day 2021 (Jan. 20), President Joe Biden signed an executive order instructing the Homeland Security Secretary to “preserve and fortify DACA.” [42]
On July 16, 2021, US District Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas ruled DACA was illegal and put a hold on all new applications. Existing enrollees were allowed to remain in the program while the ruling allowed time for the government to consider changes to the program and continue litigation. President Biden has said the federal government will appeal the ruling, which is at odds with a Dec. 2020 federal ruling that required the federal government to process new applications. [43]
The Biden administration finalized a rule on Aug. 24, 2022 to make DACA a federal regulation (instead of a policy). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule is set to take effect on Oct. 31, 2022 and will codify the policy in the federal government’s code of regulations. The new regulation purposefully addressed the steps Judge Hanen ruled the Obama administration should have taken in 2012, including making the regulation open to public comment. Whether policy or regulation, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing the Biden administration’s appeal of Hanen’s ruling, could still keep DACA closed to new applicants or terminate the program altogether. [44]
On Oct. 5, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the July 2021 court decision that DACA is illegal. The court stayed the decision and sent the case back to the Federal District Court in Houston. The Biden Administration confirmed it will continue to defend DACA. [48]
For more on the immigration debate in the United States, visit ProCon’s examinations of immigration and sanctuary cites.
|
# Employer Vaccine Mandates - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Employer vaccine mandates violate personal privacy and may exacerbate intolerance and discrimination in the workplace.
Employees may have health or other reasons for not being vaccinated. While employers are required to allow exemptions, the paperwork may require an employee to disclose sensitive personal information that could, unfortunately, be used against the employee.
Religious intolerance has been on the rise in the US, particularly antisemitism and Islamophobia. If a person declares a sincerely held religious belief as a reason for non-vaccination, an employer could discriminate against the employee either by not accommodating a vaccine waiver or other actions. Vaccine mandates force employees to disclose religious beliefs they may have otherwise kept secret if their workplace is an intolerant environment.
Some people with less visible disabilities or medical conditions who do not require other accommodation may prefer not to divulge medical information to their employers. A medical waiver often requires “medical evidence” for the exemption, exposing private information to an employer. While such discrimination is illegal, several healthcare providers have recently been successfully sued by employees who claimed their sincerely held religious beliefs and medical conditions were not accommodated as vaccine mandate exemptions.
Further, exemptions often require that the employee wear a mask, be tested daily, or work from home, which broadcasts vaccination status to coworkers who may ask intrusive questions or discriminate, straining employee relationships. Google employees wrote, “barring unvaccinated Googlers from the office publicly and possibly embarrassingly exposes a private choice as it would be difficult for the Googler not to reveal why they cannot return.”
**Background**
While the current debate about employer vaccine mandates in the United States centers upon COVID-19 requirements, mandates and the debate about them are as old as the country itself.
The first American “vaccine” mandate was issued by then General George Washington in 1777. Washington ordered Continental Army troops to be inoculated against smallpox with the precursor to the smallpox vaccine during the Revolutionary War. According to Andrew Wehrman, Associate Professor of History at Central Michigan University, the soldiers themselves “were the ones calling for it.… There’s no record that I have seen — and I’ve looked — of any soldier turning it down, protesting it.” [1]
Continental Army soldiers may have welcomed inoculation, but plenty of other people did not. After the Reverend Cotton Mather promoted and introduced smallpox inoculation in Boston in 1721 to battle a deadly outbreak of the viral disease, a man threw a bomb through a window of his home with the note: “Cotton Mather, you dog, dam you! I’ll inoculate you with this; with a pox to you.” In fact, most of the doctors in Boston were against inoculation; they even formed an organization called the “Society of Physicians Anti-Inoculators.” Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduced a smallpox vaccine into the country in 1800, courtesy of his friend, the British discoverer of the vaccine, Edward Jenner. The Founding Fathers welcomed the innovation, though too late in the case of Benjamin Franklin, who initially battled inoculation until his un-inoculated four-year-old son died from smallpox. “I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it [a preventative dose of smallpox] to him by inoculation,” admitted Franklin in his 1771 autobiography. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Most early vaccine mandates were implemented by state and local governments. For example, Massachusetts was the first state to mandate vaccines for school children in the 1850s. By 1900, half of the US states had school vaccine mandates; by 1980, all US states had them. [2] [8] [9]
The debate about mandates had taken full form by the end of the 1800s, with dissenting opinions looking much like contemporary arguments: “Some Americans opposed mandates on the grounds of personal liberty; some because they believed lawmakers were in cahoots with vaccine makers; and some because of safety concerns.” [1]
In 1905, the US Supreme Court entered the debate, ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that compulsory vaccination laws enacted by state and local governments were constitutional and enforceable. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that individual liberty is not absolute: “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.… [T]he fundamental principle of the social compact… [is] that all shall be governed by certain laws for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men.” The ruling allowed for medical exemptions, and it has been considered the authority on the subject ever since. School vaccine mandates were subsequently upheld by the US Supreme Court in Zucht v. King (1922). [2] [10]
During World War II, the US military began mandating a host of vaccines for service members, including typhoid, yellow fever, and tetanus. As of 2021, the US military required service members to get 18 vaccines, including adenovirus, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, flu, meningococcal, MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), polio, tetanus-diphtheria, and varicella (chicken pox). Members can be required to be vaccinated against other diseases based on service location: anthrax, haemophilus influenzae type B, Japanese encephalitis, pneumococcal disease, rabies, smallpox, typhoid fever, and yellow fever. Civilian military employees are also subject to vaccine mandates, including the COVID-19 vaccine. The US military allows administrative, medical, and religious vaccine exemptions, though they are rare. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Other than the US military, healthcare facilities are the most common type of employer to mandate vaccines. For years, some healthcare workers have been required to have multiple vaccinations including: hepatitis B, influenza, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), pertussis, pneumococcal disease, and varicella (chickenpox). [16]
Healthcare workers, among employees in other industries, are also increasingly required to have COVID-19 vaccinations. A Dec. 2, 2021, survey found that 25% of employers planned on implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, regardless of a federal mandate. 32% only planned to implement a mandate if the federal government required employee vaccination. And 33% said they would enforce a testing protocol rather than mandate COVID-19 vaccines. [17]
Many states and DC have implemented COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine-or-test mandates as employers. The mandates may cover executive branch staff, teachers at state schools and pre-schools, state-run healthcare facility employees, and other state government employees. Conversely, several states have enacted laws banning employers from implementing vaccine mandates. [18] [19]
The US Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 13, 2022, that the Biden Administration does not have the authority to impose a COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate. The White House mandate would have required people who work for employers with 100 or more employees to either be vaccinated or tested weekly and wear a mask indoors if unvaccinated. The Court allowed the White House COVID-19 vaccine mandate to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments. [20]
In the wake of this ruling, many large companies were rethinking the implementation or enforcement of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Many companies, including Carhartt, CitiGroup, and United Airlines, maintained their mandates, while others, including Boeing, GE, and Starbucks, did not. [21]
Whatever the status of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many employers have legally required certain employees to be vaccinated against other diseases. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that employers may require employees to be vaccinated as long as the businesses “comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.” Those accommodations include but are not limited to medical and religious exemptions. [22]
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Too many students earning degrees has diluted the value of a bachelor’s degree.
Rita McGrath, PhD, Associate Professor at Columbia Business School, stated “Having a bachelor’s used to be more rare and candidates with the degree could therefore be more choosy and were more expensive to hire. Today, that is no longer the case.” A high unemployment rate shifts the supply and demand to the employers’ favor and has made master’s degrees the “new bachelor’s degrees.” According to James Altucher, venture capitalist and finance writer, “college graduates hire only college graduates, creating a closed system that permits schools to charge exorbitant prices and forces students to take on crippling debt.”
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
As sales of violent video games have significantly increased, violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased.
In 2019, juvenile arrests for violent crimes were at an all-time low, a decline of 50% since 2006. Meanwhile, video game sales set a record in Mar. 2020, with Americans spending $5.6 billion on video game hardware, accessories, and assorted content. Both statistics continue a years-long trend.
Total US sales of video game hardware and software increased 204% from 1994 to 2014, reaching $13.1 billion in 2014, while violent crimes decreased 37% and murders by juveniles acting alone fell 76% in that same period.
The number of high school students who had been in at least one physical fight decreased from 43% in 1991 to 25% in 2013, and student reports of criminal victimization at school dropped by more than half from 1995 to 2011.
An Aug. 2014 peer-reviewed study found that: “Monthly sales of video games were related to concurrent decreases in aggravated assaults.”
**Background**
Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…
|
# Electoral College Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
The Electoral College can preclude calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections, giving certainty to presidential elections.
If the election were based on popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to receive the highest number of popular votes without actually obtaining a majority.
This happened with President Nixon in 1968 and President Clinton in 1992, when both men won the most electoral votes while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. The existence of the Electoral College precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections.
Richard A. Posner, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, further explained, “There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.”
The electoral process can also create a larger mandate to give the president more credibility; for example, President Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote in 2012 but 61.7% of the electoral votes.
In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only six times. This proves the system is working.
**Background**
The debate over the continued use of the Electoral College resurfaced during the 2016 presidential election, when Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes. The official general election results indicate that Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and 46.09% of the popular vote (62,984,825 votes), and Hillary Clinton received 227 Electoral College votes and 48.18% of the popular vote (65,853,516 votes). [1]
Prior to the 2016 election, there were four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote: 1824 (John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson), 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland), and 2000 (George W. Bush over Al Gore). [2]
The Electoral College was established in 1788 by Article II of the US Constitution, which also established the executive branch of the US government, and was revised by the Twelfth Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804), the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified July 1868), and the Twenty-Third Amendment (ratified Mar. 29, 1961). Because the procedure for electing the president is part of the Constitution, a Constitutional Amendment (which requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress plus approval by 38 states) would be required to abolish the Electoral College. [3] [4] [5] [6]
The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between electing the president via a vote in Congress only or via a popular vote only. The Electoral College comprises 538 electors; each state is allowed one elector for each Representative and Senator (DC is allowed 3 electors as established by the Twenty-Third Amendment). [3] [4] [5] [6]
In each state, a group of electors is chosen by each political party. On election day, voters choosing a presidential candidate are actually casting a vote for an elector. Most states use the “winner-take-all” method, in which all electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state. In Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the state’s overall popular vote receives two electors, and one elector from each congressional district is apportioned to the popular vote winner in that district. For a candidate to win the presidency, he or she must win at least 270 Electoral College votes. [3] [4] [5] [6]
At least 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. [25]
On Monday Dec. 19, 2016, the electors in each state met to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Of the 538 Electoral College votes available, Donald J. Trump received 304 votes, Hillary Clinton received 227 votes, and seven votes went to others: three for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle, one for John Kasich, one for Ron Paul, and one for Bernie Sanders). On Dec. 22, 2016, the results were certified in all 50 states. On Jan. 6, 2017, a joint session of the US Congress met to certify the election results and Vice President Joe Biden, presiding as President of the Senate, read the certified vote tally. [21] [22]
A Sep. 2020 Gallup poll found 61% of Americans were in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, up 12 points from 2016. [24]
For the 2020 election, electors voted on Dec. 14, and delivered the results on Dec. 23. On Jan. 6, 2021, Congress held a joint session to certify the electoral college votes during which several Republican lawmakers objected to the results and pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol sending Vice President Pence, lawmakers and staff to secure locations. The votes were certified in the early hours of Jan. 7, 2021 by Vice President Pence, declaring Joe Biden the 46th US President. President Joe Biden was inaugurated with Vice President Kamala Harris on Jan. 20, 2021. [23] [26]
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Student debt overwhelms many seniors.
Whether they co-signed for a child or grandchild’s education, or took out loans for their own educations, in 2012 there were 6.9 million student loan borrowers aged 50 and over who collectively owed $155 billion with individual average balances between $19,521 and $23,820. Of the 6.9 million borrowers, 24.7% were more than 90 days delinquent in payments. Almost 119,000 of older borrowers in default were having a portion of their Social Security payments garnished by the US government in 2012.
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Fracking Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
The US needs to immediately transition away from all fossil fuels, including natural gas.
Erich Pica, President of Friends of the Earth, stated, “Transitioning to renewable energy is not only necessary to fight the climate crisis, it is also the only way we can quickly and effectively meet rising energy demands… Over a billion people around the world lack access to electricity, and increasing fossil fuel-based generation will not fix this… Renewables, particularly small-scale renewables, are cheaper and faster to install. Small-scale renewables also tend to generate and keep power locally. This becomes a more effective way to fight energy poverty.”
According to many climate activists and scientists, there is no scenario in which the US can continue to rely on fossil fuels, including natural gas obtained via fracking, while preventing imminent and irreversible climate disaster. Green America explained, “Investing in a transition fuel is a dead end. The money spent on natural gas power facilities and infrastructure takes decades to recuperate. Companies would need to use these facilities for their full lifetimes, delaying the switch to renewables for far too long. Investment in natural gas does not incentivize a move to renewable energy. Stakeholders will be actively opposed to laws and regulations that promote clean power at the expense of natural gas companies.”
**Background**
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement. Then, a horizontal well is drilled in the layer of rock that contains natural gas. After that, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at an extremely high pressure so that it fractures the rock in a way that allows oil and gas to flow through the cracks to the surface. [1]
Colonel Edward A. L. Roberts first developed a version of fracking in 1862. During the Civil War at the Battle of Fredericksburg, Roberts noticed how artillery blasts affected channels of water. The idea of “shooting the well” was further developed by lowering a sort of torpedo into an oil well. The torpedo was then detonated, which increased oil flow. [2]
In the 1940s, explosives were replaced by high-pressure liquids, beginning the era of hydraulic fracturing. The 21st century brought two further innovations: horizontal drilling and slick water (a mix of water, sand, and chemicals) to increase fluid flow. Spurred by increased financial investment and global oil prices, fracking picked up speed and favor. About one million oil wells were fracked between 1940 and 2014, with about one third of the wells fracked after 2000. [2] [3]
Most US states allow fracking, though four states have banned the practice as of Feb. 2021: Vermont (2012), New York (temporarily in 2014; permanently in 2020), Maryland (2017), and Washington (2019). In Apr. 2021, California banned new fracking projects as of 2024. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [32]
Fracking was a hot-button issue during the US presidential race of 2020, with President Trump firmly in favor of fracking and Vice President Biden expressing more concern about the practice, especially on federal lands.
|
# GMO Pros and Cons - Should Genetically Modified Organisms Be Grown?'
**Argument**
Growing GMO crops leads to environmental benefits such as reduced pesticide use, less water waste, and lower carbon emissions.
The two main types of GMO crops in use are bioengineered to either produce their own pesticides or to be herbicide-tolerant. More than 80% of corn grown in the US is GMO Bt corn, which produces its own Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticide. This has reduced the need for spraying insecticides over corn fields by 35%, and dozens of studies have shown there are no environmental or health concerns with Bt corn.
Drought-tolerant varieties of GMO corn have been shown to reduce transpiration (evaporation of water off of plants) by up to 17.5%, resulting in less water waste.
Herbicide-tolerant (Ht) GMO soy crops have reduced the need to till the soil to remove weeds. Tilling is a process that involves breaking up the soil, which brings carbon to the surface. When that carbon mixes with oxygen in the atmosphere, it becomes carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming. Reduced tilling preserves topsoil, reduces soil erosion and water runoff (keeping fertilizers out of the water supply), and lowers carbon emissions. The decreased use of fuel and tilling as a result of growing GM crops can lower greenhouse gas emissions as much as removing 12 million cars from the roads each year.
The global population is expected to increase by two billion by 2050. Andrew Allan, a plant biologist at the University of Auckland, explained, “So where’s that extra food going to come from? It can’t come from using more land, because if we use more land, then we’ve got to deforest more, and the [global] temperature goes up even more. So what we really need is more productivity. And that, in all likelihood, will require G.M.O.s.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDid You Know?Discussion QuestionsTake Action
Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. The earliest form of selective breeding were simple and have persisted: farmers save and plant only the seeds of plants that produced the most tasty or largest (or otherwise preferable) results. In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered and developed the basics of DNA by crossbreeding peas. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [1] [2] [53] [55]
To create a GMO plant, scientists follow these basic steps over several years:
Identify the desired trait and find an animal or plant with that trait. For example, scientists were looking to make corn more insect-resistant. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt), that naturally produces an insecticide commonly used in organic agriculture.Copy the specific gene for the desired trait.Insert the specific gene into the DNA of the plant scientists want to change. In the above example, the insecticide gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was inserted into corn.Grow the new plant and perform tests for safety and the desired trait. [55]
According to the Genetic Literacy Project, “The most recent data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that more than 18 million farmers in 29 countries, including 19 developing nations, planted over 190 million hectares (469.5 million acres) of GMO crops in 2019.” The organization stated that a “majority” of European countries and Russia, among other countries, ban the crops. However, most countries that ban the growth of GMO crops, allow their import. Europe, for example, imports 30 million tons of corn and soy animal feeds every year, much of which is GMO. [58]
In the United States, the health and environmental safety standards for GM crops are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Between 1985 and Sep. 2013, the USDA approved over 17,000 different GM crops for field trials, including varieties of corn, soybean, potato, tomato, wheat, canola, and rice, with various genetic modifications such as herbicide tolerance; insect, fungal, and drought resistance; and flavor or nutrition enhancement. [44] [45]
In 1994, the “FLAVR SAVR” tomato became the first genetically modified food to be approved for public consumption by the FDA. The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life. [51]
Recently, the term “bioengineered” food has come into popularity, under the argument that almost all food has been “genetically modified” via selective breeding or other basic growing methods. Bioengineered food refers specifically to food that has undergone modification using rDNA technology, but does not include food genetically modified by basic cross-breeding or selective breeding. As of Jan. 10, 2022, the USDA listed 12 bioengineered products available in the US: alfalfa, Arctic apples, canola, corn, cotton, BARI Bt Begun varieties of eggplant, ringspot virus-resistant varieties of papaya, pink flesh varieties of pineapple, potato, AquAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet. [56] [57]
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard established mandatory national standards for labeling foods with genetically engineered ingredients in the United States. The Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 and compliance became mandatory on Jan. 1, 2022. [46]
49% of US adults believe that eating GMO foods are “worse” for one’s health, 44% say they are “neither better nor worse,” and 5% believe they are “better,” according to a 2018 Pew Research Center report. [9]
|
# Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?'
**Argument**
MLDA 21 lowers alcohol consumption and illicit drug use across age groups.
MLDA 21 reduces alcohol consumption and the number of underage drinkers. 87% of studies, according to a meta study on MLDA, found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower alcohol consumption. Studies indicate that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less and continue to drink less through their early 20s, and that youth who do not drink until they are 21 tend to drink less as adults. The number of 18-to-20 year-olds who report drinking alcohol in the past month has decreased from 59% in 1985 – one year after Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act – to 39% in 2016.
Many point to lower MLDAs in Europe as proof that the United States should have a lower MLDA. However, a study found “significantly increased alcohol consumption – particularly among boys and those from underprivileged backgrounds – when drinking becomes legal. Raising the minimum legal drinking age in Europe could reduce alcohol poisonings and the early socioeconomic gradient in teenage binge drinking.”
Additionally, lowering the drinking age will invite more use of illicit drugs among 18-21 year olds. The younger a person begins to drink alcohol the more likely it is that they will use other illicit drugs. Lowering MLDA 21 would increase the number of teens who drink and therefore the number of teens who use other drugs.
**Background**
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons.
Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens.
Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalizing marijuana creates thousands of needed jobs.
There were an estimated 122,814 legal full-time marijuana jobs in the United States as of Jan. 2017. A report from New Frontier Data found that the cannabis industry could create a quarter of a million new jobs by 2020. An economic impact estimate from the Marijuana Policy Group forecast the creation of more than 130,000 jobs in California following legalization. Within a few years of legalization, approximately 18,000 additional full-time jobs were created in Colorado annually, both in the actual marijuana business as well as in related fields such as security and real estate. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) stated that the cannabis industry in the United States “is expected to produce nearly 300,000 jobs by 2020 and grow to $24 billion by 2025.”
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Kneeling during the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Kneeling during the national anthem is an ineffective and counterproductive way to promote a cause.
Clemson University football coach Dabo Swinney said in a press conference: “I don’t think it’s good to be a distraction to your team. I don’t think it’s good to use your team as the platform.”
President Obama expressed concern that not standing for the national anthem can get in the way of the message: “As a general matter, when it comes to the flag the national anthem and the meaning that holds for our men and women in uniform and those who’ve fought for us — that is a tough thing for them to get past to then hear what his [Kaepernick’s] deeper concerns are.”
Malcolm Jenkins, safety for the Philadelphia Eagles, supported Kaepernick’s message but said, “My grandfather served [in the military]. And this is a country that I love. So, me not standing for the national anthem isn’t really going to get me the results that I want.”
**Background**
The debate about kneeling or sitting in protest during the national anthem was ignited by Colin Kaepernick in 2016 and escalated to become a nationally divisive issue.
San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first refused to stand during “The Star-Spangled Banner” on Aug. 26, 2016 to protest racial injustice and police brutality in the United States. Since that time, many other professional football players, high school athletes, and professional athletes in other sports have refused to stand for the national anthem. These protests have generated controversy and sparked a public conversation about the protesters’ messages and how they’ve chosen to deliver them. [7] [8] [9]
The 2017 NFL pre-season began with black players from the Seattle Seahawks, Oakland Raiders, and Philadelphia Eagles kneeling or sitting during the anthem with support of white teammates. On Aug. 21, 2017, twelve Cleveland Browns players knelt in a prayer circle during the national anthem with at least four other players standing with hands on the kneeling players’ shoulders in solidarity, the largest group of players to take a knee during the anthem to date. [20] [21]
Jabrill Peppers, a rookie safety for the Browns, said of the protest, “There’s a lot of racial and social injustices in the world that are going on right now. We just decided to take a knee and pray for the people who have been affected and just pray for the world in general… We were not trying to disrespect the flag or be a distraction to the team, but as men we thought we had the right to stand up for what we believed in, and we demonstrated that.” [21]
Seth DeValve, a tight end for the Browns and the first white NFL player to kneel for the anthem, stated, “The United States is the greatest country in the world. And it is because it provides opportunities to its citizens that no other country does. The issue is that it doesn’t provide equal opportunity to everybody, and I wanted to support my African-American teammates today who wanted to take a knee. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that there’s things in this country that still need to change.” [20]
However, some Cleveland Browns fans expressed their dissatisfaction on the team’s Facebook page. One commenter posted, “Pray before or pray after. Taking a knee during the National Anthem these days screams disrespect for our Flag, Our Country and our troops. My son and the entire armed forces deserve better than that.” [22]
On Friday, Sep. 22, 2017, President Donald Trump stated his opposition to NFL players kneeling during the anthem: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!” The statement set off a firestorm on both sides of the debate. Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, said of Trump’s comments, “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.” [23]
The controversy continued over the weekend as the President continued to tweet about the issue and others contributed opinions for and against kneeling during the anthem. On Sunday, Sep. 24, in London before the first NFL game played after Trump’s comments, at least two dozen Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars players knelt during the American national anthem, while other players, coaches, and staff locked arms, including Shad Khan, who is the only Pakistani-American Muslim NFL team owner. Throughout the day, some players, coaches, owners, and other staff kneeled or linked arms from every team except the Carolina Panthers. The Pittsburgh Steelers chose to remain in the locker room during the anthem, though offensive tackle and Army Ranger veteran Alejandro Villanueva stood at the entrance to the field alone, for which he has since apologized. Both the Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans teams stayed in their locker rooms before their game, leaving the field mostly empty during the anthem. The Seahawks stated, “As a team, we have decided we will not participate in the national anthem. We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of color in this country. Out of love for our country and in honor of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we unite to oppose those that would deny our most basic freedoms.” [24] [25] [27]
The controversy jumped to other sports as every player on WNBA’s Indiana Fever knelt on Friday, Sep. 22 (though WNBA players had been kneeling for months); Oakland A’s catcher Bruce Maxwell kneeled on Saturday becoming the first MLB player to do so; and Joel Ward, of the NHL’s San Jose Sharks, said he would not rule out kneeling. USA soccer’s Megan Rapinoe knelt during the anthem in 2016, prompting the US Soccer Federation to issue Policy 604-1, ordering all players to stand during the anthem. [28] [29] [30] [31] [35]
The country was still debating the issue well into the week, with Trump tweeting throughout, including on Sep. 26: “The NFL has all sort of rules and regulations. The only way out for them is to set a rule that you can’t kneel during our National Anthem!” [26]
On May 23, 2018, the NFL announced that all 32 team owners agreed that all players and staff on the field shall “stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem” or face “appropriate discipline.” However, all players will no longer be required to be on the field during the anthem and may wait off field or in the locker room. The new rules were adopted without input from the players’ union. On July 20, 2018, the NFL and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) issued a joint statement putting the anthem policy on hold until the two organizations come to an agreement. [32] [33] [34]
During the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, official league positions on kneeling began to change. On June 5, 2020, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated, “We, the National Football League, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people. We, the National Football League, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all players to speak out and peacefully protest.” [39]
Before the June 7, 2020 race, NASCAR lifted the guidelines that all team members must stand during the anthem, allowing NASCAR official and Army veteran Kirk Price to kneel during the anthem. [40]
On June 10, 2020, the US Soccer Federation rescinded the league’s requirement that players stand during the anthem amid the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd. The US Soccer Federation stated, “It has become clear that this policy was wrong and detracted from the important message of Black Lives Matter.” [35]
In the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed, 52% of Americans stated it was “OK for NFL players to kneel during the National Anthem to protest the police killing of African Americans.” [41]
The debate largely quieted after the summer of 2020, with a brief resurgence about athletes displaying political gestures on Olympic podiums of Tokyo in 2021 and Beijing in 2022.
For more on the National Anthem, see: “History of the National Anthem: Is ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ Racist?“
|
# Daylight Saving Time Pros and Cons - Top Advantages and Disadvantages'
**Argument**
Daylight Saving Time's (DST) longer daylight hours promote safety.
Longer daylight hours make driving safer, lowers car accident rates, and lowers the risk of pedestrians being hit by a car.
Economists Jennifer Doleac, PhD, and Nicholas Sanders, PhD, found that robberies drop about 7% overall, and 27% in the evening hours after the spring time change. They stated, “Most street crime occurs in the evening around common commuting hours of 5 to 8 PM, and more ambient light during typical high-crime hours makes it easier for victims and passers-by to see potential threats and later identify wrongdoers.”
Also, daylight in the evening makes it safer for joggers, people walking dogs after work, and children playing outside, among others, because drivers are able to see people more easily and criminal activity is lowered.
**Background**
In the United States, Daylight Saving Time (DST) began on Sunday, Mar. 13, 2022 at 2am with clocks “springing forward,” and will end on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022, when clocks will “fall back” to Standard Time.
DST was implemented in the United States nationally on Mar. 31, 1918 as a wartime effort to save an hour’s worth of fuel (gas or oil) each day to light lamps and coal to heat homes. It was repealed nationwide in 1919, and then maintained by some individual localities (such as New York City) in what Time Magazine called “a chaos of clocks” until 1966 when the Uniform Time Act made DST consistent nationwide. [8]
DST has been “permanently” implemented nationwide twice, once during World War II and once in the 1970s. As the war ended, only 17% wanted to keep “war time” (DST) year round. In the winter of 1973-1974, DST was used to conserve fuel during the energy crisis. 53% opposed keeping DST, probably because in some parts of the country (primarily western edges of time zones) wouldn’t see the sun rise until after 9am. [39] [40]
63 countries used Daylight Saving Time in 2021, while 9 countries used DST in some jurisdictions and not others (like the United States), and 173 countries did not use DST in 2021. In the United States, 48 states participate in Daylight Saving Time. Arizona, Hawaii, some Amish communities, and the American territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not observe DST. [36] [37] [38]
55% of Americans said they are not disrupted by the time change, 28% report a minor disruption, and 13% said the change is a major disruption. However, 40% of Americans would prefer to stay in Standard Time all year and 31% would prefer to stay in Daylight Saving Time all year, eliminating the time change. 28% of Americans would keep the time change twice a year. [20] [34]
On Mar. 15, 2022, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill that would make DST permanent as of Nov. 20, 2023 if approved by the House and signed by President Biden. The delay is meant to give airlines and other transportation providers time to adjust to the change as they set schedules months ahead of time. [41]
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Global warming and cooling are primarily caused by fluctuations in the sun’s heat (solar forcing), not by human activity.
According to a study published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 50-70% of warming throughout the 20th century could be associated with an increased amount of solar activity. Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased 0.19%, and correlated with the rise in US surface temperatures over the 20th century.
A study published in Energy & Environment wrote, “variations in solar activity and not the burning of fossil fuels are the direct cause of the observed multiyear variations in climatic responses.” In a study by Willie Soon, PhD, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years was identified.
**Background**
Average surface temperatures on earth have risen more than 2°F over the past 100 years. During this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. This site explores the debate on whether climate change is caused by humans (also known as anthropogenic climate change).
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts. They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate changes.
The con side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun’s heat and ocean currents. They say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Be Raised?'
**Argument**
Raising the rate corporate income tax rate would lower wages and increase costs for everyday people.
Using 1970-2007 data from the United States, a Tax Foundation study found that for every $1 increase in state and local corporate tax revenues, hourly wages can be expected to fall by roughly $2.50. Lower wages for workers results in a decreased ability to buy goods, which leads to lower income for businesses and a net increase in unemployment.
Forbes contributor Adam A. Millsap argued, “It is important to remember that corporate taxes must be paid by people. Any corporate tax increase will be paid by either shareholders/owners, employees in the form of lower wages, or customers in the form of higher prices. A study from 2016 finds that shareholders/owners bear around 40% of state corporate income taxes while employees bear 30 to 35%. So, even though corporate tax increases are not levied directly on workers, they still affect workers indirectly by lowering their wages.”
Experts from the Heritage Foundation estimate between 75% and 100% of the cost of the corporate tax falls on American workers, resulting in a 1.27% (about $840 a year) reduction in income for the average worker. They cite research that estimated a loss of 159,000 jobs and a wage reduction of 1.8% if the corporate tax rate were increased to 28%.
**Background**
The creation of the federal corporate income tax occurred in 1909, when the uniform rate was 1% for all business income above $5,000. Since then the rate has increased to as high as 52.8% in 1969. Today’s rate is set at 21% for all companies.
Proponents of raising the corporate tax rate argue that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes and that those taxes will keep companies in the United States while allowing the US federal government to pay for much needed infrastructure and social programs.
Opponents of raising the corporate tax rate argue that an increase will weaken the economy and that the taxes will ultimately be paid by everyday people while driving corporations overseas. Read more background…
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure prohibits school districts from firing experienced teachers to hire less experienced and less expensive teachers.
The threat of firing has increased in recent years as many school districts face budget cuts. Marcia Rothman, a teacher for 14 years, said at a protest in New York, “They don’t want old experienced teachers who are too expensive. It’s a concerted effort to harass older teachers, so they can hire two young teachers.”
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Using a tablet is so intuitive that it makes learning fun and easy.
In two isolated rural villages in Ethiopia, the One Laptop Per Child organization dropped off closed boxes containing tablets pre-loaded with educational apps, taped shut, with no instruction. Within five days, elementary school-age students without prior education were using 47 apps per child, per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs, and within five months they had successfully hacked the tablet’s operating system and customized the desktop settings.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
School vouchers fail to accommodate and support disabled and special-needs students.
Public schools are required by law to offer a wide range of free services to students who need extra or enhanced instruction, special services or equipment, or other educational accommodations. Private schools do not have those same requirements.
For example, they do not have to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires things such as wheelchair ramps, note-takers, and sign-language interpreters.
Private schools also don’t have to follow the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires that public schools provide all children with an “ambitious” educational program, rather than the bare minimum. Private schools do not have to accept children with special needs, may require extra fees (billed to the parents) for services, and are under no obligation to follow Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
School vouchers are state- or school district-funded scholarships that allow students to attend a private school of the family’s choice rather than sending the child to public school.
According to EdChoice, in the 2018-2019 school year, 18 states and DC had one or more voucher programs: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. At least 188,424 students received vouchers that school year. [21]
Though two state voucher programs have existed since the 19th century–Vermont (1869) and Main (1873)–the current debate began with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, instituted in 1990. [21]
In 2002, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s Cleveland Scholarship Program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The ruling held that the voucher program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if vouchers were used for religious schools. [22]
|
# Should College Be Free? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Tuition-free college will help decrease crippling student debt.
If tuition is free, students will take on significantly fewer student loans. Student loan debt in the United States is almost $1.75 trillion. 45 million Americans have student loan debt, and 7.5 million of those borrowers are in default. The average 2019 graduate owed $28,950 in college loans. Approximately 92% of US student loans are owned by the US Department of Education. [
Student loan debt rose 317% between 1970 and 2021, and public college costs rose 180% between 1980 and 2019. Students are coming out of college already buried under a mountain of debt before they have a chance to start their careers. [
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), an advocate for free college, stated, “It is insane and counter-productive to the best interests of our country and our future, that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades. That shortsighted path to the future must end.” [
**Background**
Free college programs come in different forms but generally refer to the government picking up the tab for tuition costs, while students pay for other expenses such as room and board. [50]
32 states and DC have some variation of free college programs. 9 states have statewide programs with “few eligibility limits,” while 23 have “[s]tate sponsored free college tuition programs with income, merit, geographical or programmatic limitations.” 18 states have no free college programs. [51] [52]
Tuition at public four-year institutions rose more than 31% between 2010 and 2020. When adjusted for inflation, college tuition has risen 747.8% since 1963. The average student loan debt more than doubled from the 1990s to the 2010s, according to the US Department of Education. About 16.8 million undergraduate students were projected to be enrolled in college in 2022, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. [29] [53] [54]
College tuition is set by state policy or by each individual institution. Some colleges, especially federal land grant schools, had free tuition beginning in the 1860s. And some states had tuition-free policies at state colleges and universities for in-state students well into the twentieth century. According to Ronald Gordon Ehrenberg, Professor at Cornell University, “Public colleges and universities were often free at their founding in the United States, but over time, as public support was reduced or not increased sufficiently to compensate for their growth in students and costs (faculty and staff salaries, utilities etc.), they moved first to a low tuition and eventually higher tuition policy. About 2.9% of American 18- to 24-year olds went to college for the 1909-1910 school year, compared to 40% in 2020. [37] [38] [39] [55]
At the national level, free college programs have been in effect for military personnel since the 1944 GI Bill. At least 26 other countries have free or nearly free college tuition: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Panama, Poland, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Uruguay. [7] [8] [9] [42] [43] [44]
According to the 2022 Education Next Survey of Public Opinion, 63% of Americans supported free 4-year college and 66% supported free 2-year college. [56]
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccines save children and their parents time and money.
Vaccines cost less in time and money to obtain than infectious diseases cost in time off of work to care for a sick child, potential long-term disability care, and medical costs. For example, children under five with the flu are contagious for about eight days, and, according to a 2012 CDC study, cost their parents an average of 11 to 73 hours of wages (about $222 to $1,456) and $300 to $4,000 in medical expenses. Children with rotavirus are contagious for up to 30 days. A 2018 study found that each case of measles in Arkansas cost the health department $47,962. [125] As of May 20, there were 880 cases of measles in 24 states in 2019, costing taxpayers an estimated $42.2 million. Furthermore, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or Obamacare) many vaccines are available to children and adults without copay.
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Is There Really a Santa Claus?'
**Argument**
“Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).”
An anonymous source told Spy Magazine, “This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.
Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth… we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles…
This means that Santa’s sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second – a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour…
The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa…
On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that ‘flying reindeer’… could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.
We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload – not even counting the weight of the sleigh – to 353,430 tons.”
**Background**
Once a year, millions of children around the world eagerly wait for a plump, bearded man dressed in red and white to bring them presents. Known as Santa Claus, his origins are mysterious and his very existence has been disputed. Some people believe that he lives and works in the North Pole, employs a group of elves to manufacture toys, distributes the gifts annually with the aid of flying reindeer, and regularly utters “ho ho ho” in a commanding voice.
But is Santa Claus man or myth? Santa believers argue that he is commonly sighted at shopping malls, that the disappearance of milk and cookies left for him is evidence of his existence, and that, after all, those Christmas gifts have to come from somewhere.
Santa skeptics argue that no one man could deliver presents to millions of households in one night, that his toy factory has never been located in the vicinity of the North Pole, and that Christmas presents are really purchased in secret by parents.
|
# Dress Codes - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Uniformly mandated dress codes are seldom uniformly mandated, often discriminating against women and marginalized groups.
The average dress code, whether for a school, workplace, public transportation, or other location, includes more rules for how girls and women should dress than how boys and men should dress.
Girls in school are frequently “dress-coded” for “too short” shorts and skirts, “too thin” tank top straps, leggings, and other clothing that might be a “distraction to boys.”
Fourth-grade teacher Marci Kutzer said these rules send a clear message to girls: “A boy’s education can be compromised by your gender. Please do what you can to neutralize it.”
The problems follow women into the workplace. A leaked training presentation from Ernst & Young coached women to “look healthy and fit” with a “good haircut, manicured nails, well-cut attire that complements your body type,” but not to wear too-short skirts because “sexuality scrambles the mind.”
Dress codes also frequently exclude people outside of the gender binary and/or force them to adhere to the codes for their sex assigned at birth.
Journalist Li Zhou explained, “Transgender students have been sent home for wearing clothing different than what’s expected of their legal sex, while others have been excluded from yearbooks. Male students, using traditionally female accessories that fell within the bounds of standard dress code rules, and vice versa, have been nonetheless disciplined for their fashion choices.” Similarly, the Ernst & Young training excluded non-binary and gender non-conforming people.
**Background**
While the most frequent debate about dress codes may be centered around K-12 schools, dress codes impact just about everyone’s daily life. From the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs (which exploded in popularity in the 1960s and 70s in reaction to the rise of hippies) to COVID-19 pandemic mask mandates, employer restrictions on tattoos and hairstyles, and clothing regulations on airlines, dress codes are more prevalent than we might think. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
While it’s difficult to pinpoint the first dress code–humans started wearing clothes around 170,000 years ago–nearly every culture and country throughout history, formally or informally, have had strictures on what to wear and not to wear. These dress codes are common “cultural signifiers,” reflecting social beliefs and cultural values, most often of the social class dominating the culture. Such codes have been prevalent in Islamic countries since the founding of the religion in the seventh century, and they continue to cause controversy today—are they appropriate regulations for maintaining piety, community, and public decency, or are they demeaning and oppressive, especially for Islamic women? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
In the West, people were arrested and imprisoned as early as 1565 in England for violating dress codes. The man in question, a servant named Richard Walweyn, was arrested for wearing “a very monsterous and outraygeous great payre of hose” (or trunk hose) and was imprisoned until he could show he owned other hose “of a decent & lawfull facyon.” Other dress codes of the time reserved expensive garments made of silk, fur, and velvet for nobility only, reinforcing how dress codes have been implemented for purposes of social distinction. Informal dress codes—such as high-fashion clothes with logos and the unofficial “Midtown Uniform” worn by men working in finance–underscore how often dress codes have been used to mark and maintain visual distinctions between classes and occupations. Other dress codes have been enacted overtly to police morality, as with the bans on bobbed hair and flapper dresses of the 1920s. Still other dress codes are intended to spur an atmosphere of inclusiveness and professionalism or specifically to maintain safety in the workplace. [6] [7] [8] [11] [12]
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines.
As Mark Twain argued: “no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused.”
**Background**
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more background…
|
# Dress Codes - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Dress codes reinforce racist standards of beauty and dress.
As the National Women’s Law Center summarized, “Black girls face unique dress and hair code burdens. For example, some schools ban styles associated with Black girls and women, like hair wraps. Black girls also face adults’ stereotyped perceptions that they are more sexually provocative because of their race, and thus more deserving of punishment for a low-cut shirt or short skirt.”
Assistant Superintendent and Principal of Evanston Township High School, Marcus Campbell spoke about changing an outdated dress code: “if certain females were not a certain body type, if they had more curves or they had certain features that were developed, they were dress coded over another young lady who may not have the same features but were wearing the exact same items. Our young women of color were dress coded more than our white girls were. So we found it to be racist, we found it to be sexist, we found it to be antiquated. It was not body positive, and there was just trouble all around with our dress code, and we knew we needed to make a change.”
Banning traditionally Black hairstyles goes back at least to tignon laws passed after emancipation, which required Black women to cover their hair with scarves (tignons) so as to not compete with white women. But these rules continue today as Black girls and women aren’t always allowed to wear their hair in braids, locs, or other styles suitable to Black hair texture at school or work.
Black male students are often “dress coded” at schools for hoodies, low-rise or baggy pants, and do-rags. Black boys were also more likely to be disciplined (suspended, for example) for a dress code violation than non-Black students.
As Dialectic, a company that counsels workplaces, concluded, “Traditional dress codes work to police certain kinds of bodies. They ensure that employees follow the practices of the dominant culture. Under the guise of professionalism, dress codes tend to punish marginalized groups of employees for refusing to conform.”
**Background**
While the most frequent debate about dress codes may be centered around K-12 schools, dress codes impact just about everyone’s daily life. From the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs (which exploded in popularity in the 1960s and 70s in reaction to the rise of hippies) to COVID-19 pandemic mask mandates, employer restrictions on tattoos and hairstyles, and clothing regulations on airlines, dress codes are more prevalent than we might think. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
While it’s difficult to pinpoint the first dress code–humans started wearing clothes around 170,000 years ago–nearly every culture and country throughout history, formally or informally, have had strictures on what to wear and not to wear. These dress codes are common “cultural signifiers,” reflecting social beliefs and cultural values, most often of the social class dominating the culture. Such codes have been prevalent in Islamic countries since the founding of the religion in the seventh century, and they continue to cause controversy today—are they appropriate regulations for maintaining piety, community, and public decency, or are they demeaning and oppressive, especially for Islamic women? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
In the West, people were arrested and imprisoned as early as 1565 in England for violating dress codes. The man in question, a servant named Richard Walweyn, was arrested for wearing “a very monsterous and outraygeous great payre of hose” (or trunk hose) and was imprisoned until he could show he owned other hose “of a decent & lawfull facyon.” Other dress codes of the time reserved expensive garments made of silk, fur, and velvet for nobility only, reinforcing how dress codes have been implemented for purposes of social distinction. Informal dress codes—such as high-fashion clothes with logos and the unofficial “Midtown Uniform” worn by men working in finance–underscore how often dress codes have been used to mark and maintain visual distinctions between classes and occupations. Other dress codes have been enacted overtly to police morality, as with the bans on bobbed hair and flapper dresses of the 1920s. Still other dress codes are intended to spur an atmosphere of inclusiveness and professionalism or specifically to maintain safety in the workplace. [6] [7] [8] [11] [12]
|
# American Socialism - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The job of the US government is to enable and protect all of its citizens. More socialist policies can work with capitalist structures to undo the harm done by unfettered capitalism.
Capitalism has resulted in the top 1% of Americans holding more wealth (a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion, or 30.4% of all US wealth) than the bottom 50% of Americans ($2.1 trillion, or 1.9%).
This disparity is not because billionaires work harder than those earning a minimum wage. Instead, rich Americans have more access and exposure to the stock market, and the Americans with the top 10% of wealth hold over 88% of all available equity in corporations and mutual fund shares (and the top 1% hold more than twice as much equity than the bottom 50% of Americans combined). And nationwide crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, only increase these disparities.
Socialist policies, particularly a wealth tax, could redistribute wealth and aid Americans who have been penalized by a structurally inequitable system.
Those who support socialist policies believe the measures could “create a fairer, more generous system,” and “build upon… and improve capitalism.” Adding socialist policies isn’t an either/or debate against capitalism. Both systems can function together.
**Background**
Socialism in the United States is an increasingly popular topic. Some argue that the country should actively move toward socialism to spur social progress and greater equity, while others demand that the country prevent this by any and all means necessary. This subject is often brought up in connection with universal healthcare and free college education, ideas that are socialist by definition, or as a general warning against leftist politics.
While some politicians openly promote socialism or socialist policies (Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example), others reject the socialist label (now Vice President Kamala Harris said she was “not a Democratic Socialist” during the 2020 presidential campaign) or invoke it as a dirty word that is contrary to American ideals (in the 2019 State of the Union, President Trump stated the US would “never be a socialist country” because “We are born free, and we will stay free”). [1] [2]
To consider whether the United States should adopt socialism or at least more socialist policies, the relevant terms must first be defined.
Socialism is an economic and social policy in which the public owns industry and products, rather than private individuals or corporations. Under socialism, the government controls most means of production and natural resources, among other industries, and everyone in the country is entitled to an equitable share according to their contribution to society. Individual private ownership is encouraged. [3]
Politically, socialist countries tend to be multi-party with democratic elections. Currently no country operates under a 100% socialist policy. Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, while heavily socialist, all combine socialism with capitalism. [4] [5]
Capitalism, the United States’ current economic model, is a policy in which private individuals and corporations control production that is guided through markets, not by the government. Capitalism is also called a free market economy or free enterprise economy. Capitalism functions on private property, profit motive, and market competition. [6]
Politically, capitalist countries range from democracies to monarchies to oligarchies to despotisms. Most western countries are capitalist, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand. Also capitalist are Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates. However, many of these countries, including the United States, have implemented socialist policies within their capitalist systems, such as social security, minimum wages, and energy subsidies. [7] [8]
Communism is frequently used as a synonym for socialism and the exact differences between the two are heavily debated. One difference is that communism provides everyone in the country with an equal share, rather than the equitable share promised by socialism. Communism is commonly summarized by the Karl Marx slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” and was believed by Marx to be the step beyond socialism. Individual private ownership is illegal in most communist countries. [4] [9]
Politically, communist countries tend to be led by one communist party, and elections are only within that party. Frequently, the military has significant political power. Historically, a secret police has also shared that power, as in the former Soviet Union, the largest communist country in history. Civil liberties (such as freedom of the press, speech, and assembly) are publicly embraced, but frequently limited in practice, often by force. Countries that are currently communist include China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Worth noting is that some of these countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, label themselves as democratic or socialist though they meet the definition of communism and are run by communist parties. Additionally, some communist countries, such as China and Vietnam, operate with partial free market economies, which is a cornerstone of capitalism, and some socialist policies. [4] [5] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Given those definitions, should the United States adopt more socialist policies such as free college, medicare-for-all, and the Green New Deal?
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
Many prominent economists oppose returning to a gold standard.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated that a return to the gold standard would mean “other things would fluctuate, and we [the Federal Reserve] wouldn’t care. We wouldn’t care if unemployment went up or down. That wouldn’t be our job anymore.”
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has called returning to a gold standard “an almost comically (and cosmically) bad idea.”
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, PhD, has said “the gold standard would not be feasible for both practical reasons and policy reasons.”
In one survey of 50 economic experts, all senior faculty members at “elite research universities,” not a single one believed returning to a gold standard would be “better for the average American” in terms of price stability or employment outcomes. One of the experts, Anil K. Kashyap, PhD, Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Chicago, stated, “Love of the G.S. [gold standard] implies macroeconomic illiteracy.”
**Background**
Proponents say the gold standard self-regulates to match supply to demand. Opponents say gold does not provide the price stability for a healthy economy.Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standard where the value of the dollar was backed by gold reserves and paper money could be redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United States dollar has had a fiat currency backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government and not backed by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue that gold retains a stable value that reduces the risk of economic crises, limits government power, would reduce the US trade deficit, and could prevent unnecessary wars by limiting defense spending.
Opponents of the gold standard argue that gold is volatile and would destabilize the economy while disallowing government economic and military intervention, and increasing environmental and cultural harms via mining. Read more background…
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccines can save children’s lives.
The American Academy of Pediatrics states that “most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease.” According to Shot@Life, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year , which equates to roughly 285 children saved every hour. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that childhood immunization prevented about 419 million illnesses, 26.8 million hospitalizations, and 936,000 early deaths of children born between 1994 and 2018. The measles vaccine has decreased childhood deaths from measles by 74%.
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Marijuana use harms the brain, and legalization will increase mental health problems.
Cannabis use may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders. Researchers at Harvard and Northwestern found that recreational marijuana smokers showed abnormalities in the shape, volume, and density of certain areas of the brain.
Dr. Hans Breiter, a psychiatrist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital who co-authored the study, said, “People think a little marijuana shouldn’t cause a problem if someone is doing O.K. with work or school. Our data directly says this is not so.” A British Journal of Psychiatry study stated, “There is good evidence that taking cannabis leads to acute adverse mental effects in a high proportion of regular users.”
A survey published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal reported that 22% of marijuana users experienced “acute anxiety or panic attacks following cannabis use,” and 15% had psychotic symptoms following use.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
Many politicians, businessmen, and organizations support the return to a gold standard.
Judy Shelton, PhD, MBA, Trump Administration economic advisor and 2020 nominee to the Federal Reserve Board, argued that returning to a gold standard is an “opportunity to secure continued prominence in global monetary affairs.”
Alan Greenspan, PhD, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, called the gold standard “the primary global currency.”
Ron Paul, MD, former US Representative (R-TX) made the return to a gold standard a central focus of his political career, arguing that government creation of fiat money is “morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency.”
Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, argued that a “new gold standard is crucial,” to save the country from a “crisis that would be even worse than 2008.”
Many organizations support a return to a gold standard including the American Principles Project, the Lehrman Institute, and several economists of the Austrian school affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
**Background**
Proponents say the gold standard self-regulates to match supply to demand. Opponents say gold does not provide the price stability for a healthy economy.Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of a gold standard where the value of the dollar was backed by gold reserves and paper money could be redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United States dollar has had a fiat currency backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government and not backed by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue that gold retains a stable value that reduces the risk of economic crises, limits government power, would reduce the US trade deficit, and could prevent unnecessary wars by limiting defense spending.
Opponents of the gold standard argue that gold is volatile and would destabilize the economy while disallowing government economic and military intervention, and increasing environmental and cultural harms via mining. Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
The United States should not have different trading and travel policies for Cuba than for other countries with governments or policies it opposes.
The United States trades with China, Venezuela, and Vietnam despite their records of human rights violations.
President George W. Bush lifted trade sanctions on North Korea in 2008 amidst concerns about that nation’s desire to develop nuclear weapons.
Americans are permitted to travel to other communist countries, nations known for human rights violations, and even places on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Citizens may go to countries like Burma, Iran, and North Korea if given a visa,.
There is no justification for singling out Cuba as the one nation in the world that is off limits.
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
The founding documents of the United States provide support for a right to health care.
The Declaration of Independence states that all men have “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” which necessarily entails having the health care needed to preserve life and pursue happiness. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to “promote the general welfare” of the people. According to former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), as part of efforts to “promote the general welfare,” health care “is a legitimate function of government.”
**Background**
27.5 million people in the United States (8.5% of the US population) do not have health insurance. Among the 91.5% who do have health insurance, 67.3% have private insurance while 34.4% have government-provided coverage through programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. Employer-based health insurance is the most common type of coverage, applying to 55.1% of the US population. The United States is the only nation among the 37 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations that does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right.
Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in one of the richest nations on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service.
Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual’s responsibility, not the government’s role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to larger government debt and deficits. Read more background…
|
# Should College Athletes Be Paid? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Paying college athletes would not solve the real problem: the American amateur sports system is broken.
Football and basketball players cannot play professionally immediately after high school. The NBA requires players to be at least 19 and a year out of high school, while the NFL requires players to be three years out of high school. These rules can effectively limit players’ options to playing in college or choosing another profession altogether. Most players have no real “amateur” sport option and those who would rather not go to college have no other established feeder system to make it to a professional team.
Further confusing the issue, the NCAA does not have a consistent or fair definition of “amateurism” and allows some significant forms of financial compensation. College athletes are allowed to compete in the Olympic Games and be financially compensated, such as Joseph Schooling, a University of Texas swimmer, who earned a $740,000 bonus for winning Singapore’s first gold medal ever at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Games for the 100m butterfly. College athletes may also play a second sport professionally and be compensated, such as Clemson quarterback Kyle Parker who earned a $1.4 million baseball signing bonus from the Colorado Rockies in 2010 while still playing football for the Tigers. Tennis players may earn up to $10,000 in prize money yearly while playing college tennis and college football players may earn up to $550 in bowl gifts.
B. David Ridpath, EdD, Associate Professor of Sports Administration at Ohio University, noted, “The only amateur quality about college athletics is that colleges refuse to pay their players.” Ridpath explained, “The United States is the only country in the world that has a significant portion of elite athletic development and commercialized sport embedded within its education systems. Consider that ten of the biggest outdoor sports stadiums in the world (excluding auto racing venues) are American college football stadiums. None of the largest ones are NFL stadiums.”
To fix the problem, and separate athletes who are getting an education just because they want to play a sport from those who actually want to go to college, the United States needs a true amateur or minor league that feeds into professional sports.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is a nonprofit organization formed in 1906 that regulates college athletics, including game rules, athlete eligibility, and college tournaments. [1] As of Mar. 2021, the NCAA was composed of “[n]early half a million college athletes [who] make up the 19,886 teams that send more than 57,661 participants to compete each year in the NCAA’s 90 championships in 24 sports across 3 divisions.” [1] [2]
The NCAA is seemingly the final authority to decide whether college athletes should be paid to play college sports. However, in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Play Act that allows college athletes to hire agents, sign endorsement deals, and be paid for the use of their likeness. [3]
California was the first state to pass a NIL (name, image, and likeness) law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2023. But California was quickly followed by more states. As of June 10, 2021, 18 states have passed NIL laws; five more states have passed bills that were awaiting the governor’s signature to become law; 14 states have introduced NIL bills; and one state has a bill passed by the Senate and awaiting a House vote, according to the Business of College Sports. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [42]
The NCAA was scheduled to vote on new NIL rules in Jan. 2021, but it then postponed the vote, citing “external factors.” [10] Days before the scheduled vote Makan Delrahim, JD, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration, questioned the proposed rules’ compliance with antitrust laws. [11]
Additionally, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Shawne Alston, et al.) about whether the NCAA is violating antitrust laws by restricting college athletes’ compensation. [12] The Supreme Court heard arguments on Mar. 31, 2021 as the NCAA March Madness tournament heads into Final Four games just days later on Apr. 3. Respondents were split 50/50 in a June 1, 2021 New York Times survey about whether the NCAA strictly limiting paid compensation is constitutional. [13] [14] [41]
Gabe Feldman, JD, Professor of Sports Law, Director of the Sports Law Program and Associate Provost for NCAA compliance at Tulane University, noted that the last time the NCAA was at the Supreme Court was in 1984 (NCAA vs. the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma). The ruling changed the broadcast regulations for college football. Feldman explained, “That was a shape-shifting decision that in many ways fundamentally changed economics of college football and college football television. And ever since that 1984 decision, courts have been relying on that language to try to interpret antitrust law applies to all NCAA restrictions, including player compensation.” [15]
On June 21, 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the NCAA cannot ban certain payments to student athletes under the premise of maintaining amateurism. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated, “traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated. Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.” [43] [44]
On June 28, 2021, the NCAA Division I Council recommended to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors that student athletes be allowed to profit from their name, image, and likeness. Schools would not be allowed to pay students and no one could offer compensation for students to attend a particular school. If adopted, the rule would only apply to Division I schools and would be temporary until the NCAA or Congress acts. [45]
On June 30, 2021, fewer than 12 hours before some states’ NIL laws went into effect, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors issued an interim ruling stating that Bylaw 12 (the rules that say athletes cannot receive payment) will not be enforced. Divisions II and III of the NCAA followed suit and the changes went into effect for all three divisions on July 1, 2021. [46]
The University of North Carolina became the first school to organize group licensing deals for student athletes in July 2021. UNC athletes will be able to earn money for NIL marketing including UNC trademarks and logos in groups of three or more athletes. For example, a student athlete will be compensated for the sale of a jersey featuring their name, or for a sponsorship deal in which they appear wearing a UNC jersey. Group licensing deals in theory can allow lesser-known players to reap the benefits of appearing alongside a well-known player. [47]
By Jan. 2022, without a clear NIL structure from the NCAA, some schools were questioning how to navigate deals for players or whole teams without violating NCAA policy. [48]
A 2019 Seton Hall Sports Poll found that 60% of those surveyed agreed that college athletes should be allowed compensation for their name, image, and/or likeness, while 32% disagreed, and 8% were unsure. This was quite a change from polling conducted in 2017, when 60% believed college scholarships were enough compensation for college athletes. [16]
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media enables the spread of unreliable and false information.
64% of people who use Twitter for news say that they have encountered something they “later discovered wasn’t true,” and 16% of Twitter news users say that “they had retweeted or posted a tweet they later discovered to be false.” A study published in the journal Science found that lies spread six times faster than the truth on Twitter, and “fake news” is retweeted more often than true news. In the three months prior to the 2016 US presidential election, false news stories about the two candidates were shared a total of 37.6 million times on Facebook. A federal grand jury indictment announced in Feb. 2018 by special counsel Robert Mueller said that a Russian group created phony social media accounts “to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system.” A University of Michigan study found that even when false information is corrected, the number of people who see or share the correction via social media is lower than number who saw or shared the false information in the first place.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets help students better prepare for a world immersed in technology.
Students that learn technology skills early in life will be better prepared to pursue relevant careers later in life. The fastest growing and highest paying jobs in the United States are technology intensive. Employment in “computer and information systems” is expected to grow by 18% between 2010-20, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.
Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets.
Michael C. Bellas, Chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation, says “Imagine a person cutting 161 hot dogs, 126 chocolate doughnuts or 87 cheeseburgers from their diet last year. That’s the kind of difference we’re talking about when we quantify the number of calories saved due to this widespread shift to bottled water.”
In Aug. 2017, the National Park Service discontinued its policy that encouraged national parks to ban sales of plastic water bottles stating that, “The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice… while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks.”
The International Bottled Water Association noted, “research shows that if bottled water isn’t available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink – not tap water.”
In Spring 2013, the University of Vermont banned the sale of single use plastic water bottles on campus. The ban resulted in increased sales of higher calorie beverages in place of zero-calorie water; sales of low-calorie (10-50 calorie) beverages increased 12%, juices increased 11%, and sugar-sweetened beverages increased 10%.
**Background**
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028. [50] [51] [52]
Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles. [49]
In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park. [17] [26] [44]
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
The Second Amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they could participate in the militia to keep the peace and defend the country if needed.
According to the United States Code, a “militia” is composed of all “able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Therefore, the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment would have been composed of almost all adult men and, in turn, that most adult men should not have their right to own firearms infringed. A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register their gun ownership on public records. Daniel J. Schultz, lawyer, stated, “the Framers [of the Constitution and Bill of Rights] understood that ‘well-regulated’ militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined would post no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to ‘insure domestic Tranquility’ and ‘provide for the common defence.'”
**Background**
The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.
Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Read more background…
|
# Fracking Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
Fracking has allowed the US to produce and export more natural gas, which has increased national security and moved the country toward energy independence.
US Representative Fred Keller (R-PA) stated, “America’s energy independence has made our country more secure, put more money back in our pockets, and in rural areas—like those across central and northeast Pennsylvania—led to an economic explosion not seen in generations. The United States is now the world leader in oil and natural gas production and a net exporter of natural gas… The less reliant the United States and our allies are on energy resources produced by countries that hate us, the less influence they have over us.”
Fracking accounts for 95% of new American natural gas wells. Eliminating fracking would severely hamper the US’s ability to be energy independent.
A 2020 American Petroleum Institute study found that banning fracking could be disastrous, resulting in, among other consequences, a $1.2 reduction in 2022 GDP triggering a recession; 7.5 million lost jobs; a $3.1 million trade deficit increase through 2030; an annual household income loss of $5,040 per year; an increase in household energy spending of $618 per year; and a return of American dependence on imported energy sources.
**Background**
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement. Then, a horizontal well is drilled in the layer of rock that contains natural gas. After that, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at an extremely high pressure so that it fractures the rock in a way that allows oil and gas to flow through the cracks to the surface. [1]
Colonel Edward A. L. Roberts first developed a version of fracking in 1862. During the Civil War at the Battle of Fredericksburg, Roberts noticed how artillery blasts affected channels of water. The idea of “shooting the well” was further developed by lowering a sort of torpedo into an oil well. The torpedo was then detonated, which increased oil flow. [2]
In the 1940s, explosives were replaced by high-pressure liquids, beginning the era of hydraulic fracturing. The 21st century brought two further innovations: horizontal drilling and slick water (a mix of water, sand, and chemicals) to increase fluid flow. Spurred by increased financial investment and global oil prices, fracking picked up speed and favor. About one million oil wells were fracked between 1940 and 2014, with about one third of the wells fracked after 2000. [2] [3]
Most US states allow fracking, though four states have banned the practice as of Feb. 2021: Vermont (2012), New York (temporarily in 2014; permanently in 2020), Maryland (2017), and Washington (2019). In Apr. 2021, California banned new fracking projects as of 2024. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [32]
Fracking was a hot-button issue during the US presidential race of 2020, with President Trump firmly in favor of fracking and Vice President Biden expressing more concern about the practice, especially on federal lands.
|
# Olympics Hosting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Olympics increase a host country's global trade and stature.
Host countries tend to be invited to prestigious global economic organizations. According to economics professors Robert A. Baade, PhD, and Victor A. Matheson, PhD, “the very act of bidding [for the Games] serves as a credible signal that a country is committing itself to trade liberalization that will permanently increase trade flows.”
China negotiated with the World Trade Organization, opening trade for the country, after being awarded the Beijing 2008 Summer Games. After a successful 1955 bid for the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome, Italy joined the United Nations and began the Messina negotiations that led to the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC). The 1964 Tokyo Summer Games led to Japan’s entry into the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the OECD.
The 1968 Summer Olympics allowed Mexico to make “the leap into the ranks of industrialized nations,” according to Dr. David Goldblatt, sociologist and sports writer. Spain joined the EEC within a year of the 1986 Barcelona Summer Olympics. Korea’s political liberalization coincided with winning the bid for the 1988 Seoul Summer Games.
One economic study found that “the Olympic effect is robust; hosting the games tends to increase a country’s openness substantively and permanently.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The Beijing 2022 Winter Games are scheduled for Feb. 4 – Feb. 20, 2022 and will debut seven new sports: freestyle skiing: mixed team aerials; freestyle skiing: men’s big air; freestyle skiing: women’s big air; short-track speedskating: mixed team relay; ski jumping: mixed team event; snowboarding: mixed team snowboard cross; and bobsled: women’s monobob. [66]
On Dec. 6, 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics: “The Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic games given [China’s] ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and other human rights abuses.” Australia, Canada, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom have also announced diplomatic boycotts. [64] [65]
The host cities for four future Games have been announced: Paris Summer 2024, Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo Winter 2026, Los Angeles Summer 2028, and Brisbane Summer 2032 (Winter 2030 has not yet been set). [1] [2] [62]
Click to jump to more on the history of the Olympics.
|
# Should Social Security Be Privatized?'
**Argument**
Being able to invest in one’s own private retirement account removes the uncertainty that accompanies the current government-controlled program.
According to a 2010 Gallup poll, 60% of currently working adults assume they will not receive Social Security benefits when they retire. With private accounts, individuals will be paying into a fund that they control, instead of a government-controlled trust fund that may run out of money before they ever receive the benefits they’ve earned.
Edward P. Lazear, PhD, Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the George W. Bush presidency, stated that “private accounts enhance, rather than reduce, the likelihood that contributors will receive what they expect. Benefits are more, not less, secure with private accounts” because while the government could succumb to pressure to reduce benefits or change the age of eligibility at any time, returns on, for example, US Treasury bonds “will be paid with virtual certainty.”
A system using private accounts would be restricted to allow only low-risk investments so returns would be assured. Converting Social Security into private accounts does not mean workers would be free to put their contributions into high-risk ventures. People would not be allowed to invest their Social Security savings in individual stocks or other highly volatile investments. President George W. Bush’s 2005 plan would only have allowed relatively low risk investments such as “a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds.” [26] [27] [28]
**Background**
Social Security accounted for 23% ($1 trillion) of total US federal spending in 2019. Since 2010, the Social Security trust fund has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in employee taxes, and is projected to run out of money by 2035. One proposal to replace the current government-administered system is the partial privatization of Social Security, which would allow workers to manage their own retirement funds through personal investment accounts.
Proponents of privatization say that workers should have the freedom to control their own retirement investments, that private accounts will give retirees higher returns than the current system can offer, and that privatization may help to restore the system’s solvency.
Opponents of privatization say that retirees could lose their benefits in a stock market downturn, that many individuals lack the knowledge to make wise investment decisions, and that privatization does nothing to address the program’s approaching insolvency. Read more background…
|
# Reparations for Slavery - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
No one currently living is responsible for righting the wrongs committed by long dead slave owners.
Over 150 years ago, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on Dec. 6, 1865, ending slavery in the United States. The first enslaved African arrived on American soil more than 400 years ago in 1619. The last living survivor of the transatlantic slave trade, Matilda McCrear, who arrived in Alabama in 1860, died in Jan. 1940.
As of Apr. 2020, millennials are the largest living adult age group in the United States. Born in 1981 or later, the 72.1 million American millennials would have to go back at least five or six generations to find a slave or slave owner in their lineage, if there were any at all.
Should people so far removed from slavery be held accountable for the damage?
Republican US Senator Mitch McConnell, JD, of Kentucky stated, “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea…. We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We elected an African American president.”
McConnell continued, “I think we’re always a work in progress in this country but no one currently alive was responsible for that and I don’t think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it.”
Steven Greenhut, Western Region Director for R Street Institute, also notes, “White Americans whose families arrived after the segregation era will wonder why they must pay for the sins of other people’s ancestors. Instead of solving problems, everyone will fight over money. It will end up only being about the money. This is not how to help a nation reckon with its past.”
Scott Reader, a reporter, summarized, “The fact of the matter is I don’t believe in collective guilt. I don’t believe all Muslims can be blamed for the 9-11 terrorist attacks, that all gun owners are to blame for violence in our cities or that all Americans are responsible for the injustice of slavery.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Reparations are payments (monetary and otherwise) given to a group that has suffered harm. For example, Japanese-Americans who were interned in the United States during World War II have received reparations. [1]
Arguments for reparations for slavery date to at least Jan. 12, 1865, when President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Union General William T. Sherman met with 20 African American ministers in Savannah, Georgia. Stanton and Sherman asked 12 questions, including: “State in what manner you think you can take care of yourselves, and how can you best assist the Government in maintaining your freedom.” Appointed spokesperson, Baptist minister, and former slave Garrison Frazier replied, “The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor … and we can soon maintain ourselves and have something to spare … We want to be placed on land until we are able to buy it and make it our own.” [2] [3]
On Jan. 16, 1865, Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15 that authorized 400,000 acres of coastal land from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida to be divided into forty-acre plots and given to newly freed slaves for their exclusive use. The land had been confiscated by the Union from white slaveholders during the Civil War. Because Sherman later gave orders for the Army to lend mules to the freedmen, the phrase “forty acres and a mule” became popular. [1] [4]
However, shortly after Vice President Andrew Johnson became president following Abraham Lincoln’s assassination on Apr. 14, 1865, he worked to rescind the order and revert the land back to the white landowners. At the end of the Civil War, the federal government had confiscated 850,000 acres of former Confederates’ land. By mid-1867, all but 75,000 acres had been returned to the Confederate owners. [1] [4] [5]
Other efforts and arguments have been made to institute or deny reparations to descendants of slaves since the 1860s, and the issue remains divisive and hotly debated. An Oct. 2019 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found 29% of Americans overall approved of reparations. When separated by race, the poll showed 74% of black Americans, 44% of Hispanics, and 15% of white Americans were in favor of reparations. [6]
While Americans generally think of reparations as monetary, Michelle Bachelet, MD, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in the office’s June 1, 2021 annual report, stated: “Measures taken to address the past should seek to transform the future. Structures and systems that were designed and shaped by enslavement, colonialism and successive racially discriminatory policies and systems must be transformed. Reparations should not only be equated with financial compensation. They also comprise measures aimed at restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, including, for example, formal acknowledgment and apologies, memorialization and institutional and educational reforms. Reparations are essential for transforming relationships of discrimination and inequity and for mutually committing to and investing in a stronger, more resilient future of dignity, equality and non-discrimination for all. Reparatory justice requires a multipronged approach that is grounded in international human rights law. Reparations are one element of accountability and redress. For every violation, there should be repair of the harms caused through adequate, effective and prompt reparation. Reparations help to promote trust in institutions and the social reintegration of people whose rights may have been discounted, providing recognition to victims and survivors as rights holders.” [46]
President Obama outlined the political difficulty of reparations on his podcast with Bruce Springsteen, “Renegades: Born in the U.S.A.” He said, “So, if you ask me theoretically: ‘Are reparations justified?’ The answer is yes. There’s not much question that the wealth of this country, the power of this country was built in significant part — not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it — but a large portion of it was built on the backs of slaves. What I saw during my presidency was the politics of white resistance and resentment, the talk of welfare queens and the talk of the undeserving poor and the backlash against affirmative action… all that made the prospect of actually proposing any kind of coherent, meaningful reparations program struck me as, politically, not only a non-starter but potentially counterproductive.” [47]
An Oct. 2021 Gallup Center on Black Voices survey found 62% of American adults believe the federal government has an obligation to reduce the effects of slavery; 37% believe the government has no such obligation. Of those who support government action, 65% believe all black Americans should benefit, while 32% believe only the descendants of enslaved people should benefit. [48]
|
# Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo against Cuba?'
**Argument**
The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it, and the US will look weak for lifting the sanctions.
Proclamation 3447 signed by President Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962, established the embargo against Cuba to reduce “the threat posed by its alignment with the communist powers.”
The embargo was strengthened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (also known as Helms-Burton) [49] which specified conditions for terminating the embargo. According to US law, Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions. Since Cuba has not met these conditions, the embargo should not be lifted.
Lifting the sanctions unilaterally would be an act of appeasement that could embolden Cuba to join forces with other countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, China, and Iran to promote anti-American sentiments or socialism in the Western Hemisphere. The United States should not risk sending the message that it can be waited out or that seizing US property in foreign countries, as Castro did in Cuba when he took power, will be tolerated.
**Background**
Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as “el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US jurisdiction.
Proponents of the embargo argue that Cuba has not met the US conditions for lifting the embargo, including transitioning to democracy and improving human rights. They say that backing down without getting concessions from the Castro regime will make the United States appear weak, and that only the Cuban elite would benefit from open trade.
Opponents of the Cuba embargo argue that it should be lifted because the failed policy is a Cold War relic and has clearly not achieved its goals. They say the sanctions harm the US economy and Cuban citizens, and prevent opportunities to promote change and democracy in Cuba. They say the embargo hurts international opinion of the United States. Read more background…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors.
Research shows that playing violent video games can induce a feeling of guilt that leads to increased prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others) in the real world.
A study published in Computers in Human Behavior discovered that youths exposed to violence in action games displayed more prosocial behavior and civic engagement, “possibly due to the team-oriented multiplayer options in many of these games.”
**Background**
Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media offers teachers a platform for collaboration with other teachers and communication with students outside the classroom.
More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social media sites like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over 65.5 million users in 2016.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Vaccines protect future generations.
Vaccinated mothers protect their unborn children from viruses that could potentially cause birth defects, and vaccinated communities can help eradicate diseases for future generations. Before the rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969, a global rubella (German measles) outbreak caused the deaths of 11,000 babies, and birth defects in 20,000 babies between 1963 and 1965 in the United States. Women who were vaccinated as children against rubella have greatly decreased the chance of passing the virus to their unborn or newborn children, eliminating the birth defects, such as heart problems, hearing and vision loss, congenital cataracts, liver and spleen damage, and mental disabilities, associated with the disease.
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Many people succeed without college degrees.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 30 projected fastest growing jobs between 2010 and 2020, five do not require a high school diploma, nine require a high school diploma, four require an associate’s degree, six require a bachelor’s degree, and six require graduate degrees. The following successful people either never enrolled in college or never completed their college degrees: Richard Branson, founder and chairman of the Virgin Group; Charles Culpepper, owner and CEO of Coca Cola; Ellen Degeneres, comedian and actress; Michael Dell, founder of Dell, Inc.; Walt Disney, Disney Corporation founder; Bill Gates, Microsoft founder; Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple; Wolfgang Puck, chef and restauranteur; Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple; Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook.
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Historic Statue Removal - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Removing statues is a slippery slope that could lead to the brash removal of monuments to any slightly problematic person.
During the protests following the death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, many Confederate statues were damaged or toppled, as were statues of Presidents , , and .
Washington, Jefferson, and Grant had undeniable ties to slavery. Washington owned over 300, Jefferson over 600, and Grant worked on his wife’s family plantation and inherited one slave upon his father-in-law’s death.
However, Washington led the Continental Army to victory over the British, held together the country as the first President over two terms, resisted calls to become King of the country, and, in his will, freed his slaves upon his wife’s death.
Jefferson is the author of two of our most dear principles as a country: equality and religious freedom. He was also an , though a hypocritical and pragmatic one who understood the country would not give up slavery so easily. While he hoped the next generation would abolish slavery, he wrote in 1820 that maintaining the institution of slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”
Grant came from an abolitionist family, freed the one slave he owned in 1859, supported black enlisted Army men, led the Union Army in the Civil War to abolish slavery, and was endorsed by Frederick Douglass for president.
Should we not honor the contributions of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant to the United States because they owned slaves, as did many men of their standing at the time, even though they struggled with the institution?
Annette Gordon-Reed, JD, Professor of American Legal History at Harvard University, explained, “There is an important difference between helping to create the United States and trying to destroy it. Both Washington and Jefferson were critical to the formation of the country and to the shaping of it in its early years… No one puts a monument up to Washington or Jefferson to promote slavery… I think on these two, Washington and Jefferson, in particular, you take the bitter with sweet. The main duty is not to hide the bitter parts.”
Eight US presidents owned slaves while in office, with an additional four owning slaves while not in office. , , and the white purposefully excluded black women. regularly cheated on his wife. Do we exclude the achievements of these figures from public display because they displayed controversial behavior? Where do we draw a line? Do we protect Confederate graves and battlefields? Or should those also be destroyed? The line is subjective, difficult to draw, and easy to reinterpret, leaving no memorial protected.
The slippery slope goes further, allowing anyone to destroy any statue they disagree with. For example, a statue of black abolitionist and former slave was damaged over the July 4, 2020 weekend in Rochester, New York. And a statue of black tennis star and Civil Rights activist was tagged with “white lives matter” graffiti in Richmond, Virginia.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While the debate whether Confederate statues should be taken down has been gaining momentum for years, the issue gained widespread attention after the June 17, 2015, mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter was said to have glorified the Confederate South, posing in Facebook photos with the Battle Flag of the Northern Virginia Army (also known now as the “Confederate flag,” though it never represented the Confederate States) and touring historical Confederate locations before the shooting. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The issue rose to prominence again in 2017 after an Aug. 12 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent and deadly. The rally protested the proposed removal of statues of Confederate Army Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. [5]
The Virginia statues still stood amid the protests following the death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, though they were tagged with graffiti then (and later removed on July 10, 2021). During the global Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, calls to take down the statues were met with citizens not only actively damaging or removing statues of Confederate figures, but targeting statues of slave-holding Founding Fathers in general, as well as historic monuments to Abraham Lincoln and abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [54]
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 59 Confederate statues and nine markers or plaques were removed from public land in 19 US states between June 17, 2015 and July 6, 2020. The SPLC reported at least 160 monuments were removed in 2020 after George Floyd’s death, more than the prior four years combined At last count, about 704 Confederate monuments remained on public land. [14] [55]
In June 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to remove all confederate statues and bust of Roger B. Taney (the US Supreme Court Chief Justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision) from the US Capitol’s Statuary Hall. Taney’s bust was replaced with one of Thurgood Marshall. On July 13, 2022, Florida erected a statue of Mary McLeod Bethune to replace their confederate soldier statue. Bethune’s is the first state-commissioned statue of a Black person to be included in Statuary Hall. [56]
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
A minimum wage increase would hurt businesses and force companies to close.
60% of small-business owners say that raising the minimum wage will “hurt most small-business owners,” according to a 2013 Gallup poll. Jamie Richardson, MBA, Vice President of fast food chain White Castle, said that the company would be forced to close almost half its stores and let go thousands of workers if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15. Forbes reported that an increase in the minimum wage has led to the closure of several Wal-Mart stores and the cancellation of promised stores yet to open.
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Education:
Clinton’s Goals 2000 program distributed two billion dollars between 1994 and 1999 to set uniform standards in US schools. His 1994 Improving America’s School Act (IASA) received support from Republicans and Democrats and from the education and business communities. IASA required that standards and accountability be the same for economically disadvantaged students as for other students.
**Background**
William Jefferson Clinton, known as Bill Clinton, served as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates, and a budget surplus. They give him credit for eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare, despite being forced to deal with a Republican-controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-plagued presidency because it was the result of other factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial crisis that began in 2007. They point to his impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass universal health care coverage as further evidence that he was not a good president. Read more background…
|
# Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?'
**Argument**
To deny some people the option to marry would be discriminatory and would create a second class of citizens. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.”
As well as discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay marriage bans discriminated based on one’s sex. As David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel University School of Law, explained, “Imagine three people—Nancy, Bill, and Tom… Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill, a man, cannot… Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot, simply because Nancy is a woman and Bill is a man.”
Over 1,000 benefits, rights and protections are available to married couples in federal law alone, including hospital visitation, filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a partner dies.
Married couples also have access to protections if the relationship ends, such as child custody, spousal or child support, and an equitable division of property. Married couples in the US armed forces are offered health insurance and other benefits unavailable to domestic partners. The IRS and the US Department of Labor also recognize married couples, for the purpose of granting tax, retirement and health insurance benefits.
An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits incurred an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetimes compared with married heterosexual couples.
Additionally, legal same-sex marriage comes with mental and physical health benefits. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others concluded that legal gay marriage gives couples “access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.”
A study found that same-sex married couples were “significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship.”
A 2010 analysis found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders.
**Background**
This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future.
On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.
Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.
Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks on one device, plus homework, quizzes, and other files, eliminating the need for physical storage of books and classroom materials.
The average tablet contains anywhere from 8 to 64 gigabytes (GB) of storage space. On the Amazon Kindle Fire, for instance, 1,000 books take up one GB of space.
**Background**
Textbook publishing in the United States is an $11 billion industry, with five companies – Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, and Scholastic – capturing about 80% of this market. Tablets are an $18 billion industry with 53% of US adults, 81% of US children aged eight to 17, and 42% of US children aged under eight, owning a tablet. As tablets have become more prevalent, a new debate has formed over whether K-12 school districts should switch from print textbooks to digital textbooks on tablets and e-readers.
Proponents of tablets say that they are supported by most teachers and students, are much lighter than print textbooks, and improve standardized test scores. They say tablets can hold hundreds of textbooks, save the environment by lowering the amount of printing, increase student interactivity and creativity, and that digital textbooks are cheaper than print textbooks.
Opponents of tablets say that they are expensive, too distracting for students, easy to break, and costly/time-consuming to fix. They say that tablets contribute to eyestrain, headaches, and blurred vision, increase the excuses available for students not doing their homework, require costly Wi-Fi networks, and become quickly outdated as new technologies emerge. Read more background…
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
Countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States.
Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people). The United States, categorized as having “permissive” firearm regulation by GunPolicy.org, ranked first in international gun ownership rates with 88.8 guns per 100 people (about 270,000,000 guns total). In 2007 the United States had 12,632 gun homicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people) and 17,352 gun suicides (5.76 deaths per 100,000 people). Harvard professor David Hemenway, PhD, wrote “We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.” According to a Mar. 2016 study, gun homicide rates in the United States were 25.3 times higher and gun suicides were 8 times higher in 2010 than in other populous, high-income countries. Additionally, 90% of women, 91% of 0- to 14-year olds, 92% of 15- to 24-year-olds, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States.
**Background**
The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.
Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Marijuana harms the health of users and people around them.
Smoking marijuana can damage lung tissues and cause respiratory problems; secondhand marijuana smoke is also dangerous. Research shows that smoking one marijuana joint is as damaging to the lungs as five tobacco cigarettes. Marijuana may contain five times as much carbon monoxide concentration and three times as much tar as tobacco. There is a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes in the hours immediately after smoking cannabis.
A study found that using a vaporization device “likely leads to enhanced ingestion of toxic ammonia known to result in neurobehavioral impairment.” Ammonia ingested while vaping can result in lung irritation, nervous system effects, and asthma attacks.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Raising the minimum wage would increase school attendance and decrease high school drop-out rates.
A 2014 study found that raising the Californian minimum wage to $13 an hour would increase the incomes of 7.5 million families, meaning fewer would live in poverty. Teens who live in poverty are twice as likely to miss three or more days of school per month compared to those who do not; thus raising the minimum wage and lifting families out of poverty would mean children would miss fewer school days. The study found that “recent experimental studies show that increasing income can improve school performance.” Increasing the minimum wage would allow teens to work fewer hours for the same amount of pay giving them more time to study and reducing the likelihood that they would drop out of high school. A 2014 study by Alex Smith, PhD, Assistant Professor of Economics at the United States Military Academy at West Point, found that “an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (39%)… would lead to a 2-4 percentage point decrease in the likelihood that a low-SES [socio-economic status] teen will drop out.”
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?'
**Argument**
Drone strikes violate the sovereignty of other countries and are extremely unpopular in the affected countries.
Strikes are often carried out without the permission and against the objection of the target countries. Iraq Parliament Speaker Mohammed al-Halboosi called the Jan. 2020 strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani “a flagrant violation of sovereignty, and a violation of international conventions… “Any security and military operation on Iraqi territory must have the approval of the government.”
Pakistan’s foreign ministry called drone strikes “illegal” and said they violated the country’s sovereignty. On Oct. 22, 2013, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said that the “use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve at efforts in eliminating terrorism from our country… I would therefore stress the need for an end to drone attacks.”
The United Nations’ Human Rights Chief, Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions have all called US drone strikes a violation of sovereignty, and have pressed for investigations into the legality of the attacks. In a July 18, 2013, 39-country survey by Pew Research, only six countries approved of US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
General Stanley McChrystal, former leader of the US military in Afghanistan, says that the “resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes… is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”
76% of residents in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of northwestern Pakistan (where 96% of drone strikes in the country are carried out) oppose American drone strikes. [80] 48% think the strikes largely kill civilians. Only 17% of Pakistanis back American drone strikes against leaders of extremist groups, even if they are conducted in conjunction with the Pakistani government.
On Dec. 16, 2013, Yemen’s parliament passed a motion calling for the United States to end its drone program in the country after a wedding convoy of 11 to 15 people were killed by a US drone strike.
**Background**
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are remotely-controlled aircraft which may be armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions. Since the World Trade Center attacks on Sep. 11, 2001 and the subsequent “War on Terror,” the United States has used thousands of drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.
Proponents state that drones strikes help prevent “boots on the ground” combat and makes America safer, that the strikes are legal under American and international law, and that they are carried out with the support of Americans and foreign governments
Opponents state that drone strikes kill civilians, creating more terrorists than they kill and sowing animosity in foreign countries, that the strikes are extrajudicial and illegal, and create a dangerous disconnect between the horrors of war and soldiers carrying out the strikes.
|
# Immigrant Sanctuary Cities - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Sanctuary policies are legal and protected by the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides for the separation of federal and state powers.
According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Amendment prevents the “federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, like immigration,” and, thus, Congress cannot compel state or local governments to collect immigration status information in order to share it with the federal government.
Because the data is never collected due to “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies, the local and state governments are not in violation of federal law.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While there is no official legal definition of “sanctuary city,” the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants, often with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. [2]
Some argue that sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, New York, and Chicago should not receive federal funding because they are not enforcing federal immigration laws. Others say that sanctuary city policies protect both citizens and undocumented immigrants.
There are 11 states, 40 cites, and 143 counties listed as sanctuary jurisdictions by the Center for Immigration Studies as of Mar. 22, 2021. [32]
Florida banned sanctuary cities on June 14, 2019, joining at least 11 other states with similar rules, according to CNN. Representatives in other states have since pushed for sanctuary cities bans, including New Hampshire, Georgia, and Oklahoma. [22] [24] [25] [26]
Sanctuary cities grew from the Sanctuary Movement the late 1980s and early 1990s in which religious congregations began helping undocumented Salvadorian and Guatemalan families settle in the United States. They acted in direct defiance of US immigration authorities, who denied over 90% of asylum requests by immigrants fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. The sanctuary activists believed that the federal government was breaking international and domestic refugee law. [1] [2]
Los Angeles was the first city to enact sanctuary policies, with a focus on undocumented immigrants already in the United States. The chief of police enacted Special Order No. 40 on Nov. 27, 1979, stating that police officers should not inquire about immigration status and should provide city services to everyone equally. San Francisco followed suit, passing the “City of Refuge” resolution in 1985 and “City of Refuge” ordinance in 1989, requiring that all city employees stop immigration policing and provide city services to all residents regardless of immigration status. [2] [12] [29]
The Trump administration held that the federal government should be able to withhold funds from sanctuary cities for their non-compliance with federal laws. The Biden administration reversed that policy. [22] [27] [28] [30][31]
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence.
Desensitization to violence was defined in a Journal of Experimental Social Psychology peer-reviewed study as “a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence.”
The study found that just 20 minutes of playing a violent video game “can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence.” People desensitized to violence are more likely to commit a violent act.
By age 18, American children will have seen 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence depicted in violent video games, movies, and television.
A Sep. 2011 peer-reviewed study found a causal link between violent video game exposure and an increase in aggression as a result of a reduction in the brain’s response to depictions of real-life violence.
Studies have found reduced emotional and physiological responses to violence in both the long and short term.
In a 2005 peer-reviewed study, violent video game exposure was linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior.
**Background**
Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played video games in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.
Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, “The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.”
**Background**
The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions.
Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Read more background…
|
# Saturday Halloween - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
A Saturday Halloween would minimize the holiday's negative impact on schools and learning.
When Halloween falls on a weekday, students are too distracted to learn. Halloween parties and parades at school exclude kids whose cultures don’t celebrate or whose parents can’t afford nice costumes.
School day Halloween celebrations, which may have sweet treats and loud music, raise potential issues for students with serious food allergies, kids on the autism spectrum, and those with anxiety. Students and even teachers sometimes cause disruptions by wearing costumes that are inappropriate, racist, or just plain too scary.
Teachers also struggle to keep students focused the day after Halloween, when they have to wrangle tired and cranky kids. Retired teacher Cookie Knisbaum stated that kids are “going to be hyped-up from the day before, and they’re going to try to bring their candy with them.” Moving Halloween to a Saturday would get the holiday out of the classroom and allow families to decide if and how they want to celebrate.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Halloween takes place on Oct. 31 regardless of the day of the week. In 2021, Halloween is on a Sunday. In 2020, Halloween fell on a Saturday, though the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic led many jurisdictions to adapt or cancel traditional activities. [33]
According to tradition, children in the United States dress up in costumes and go door-to-door in their neighborhoods saying “trick or treat” to receive candy.
Some would like to see Halloween held on a Saturday every year for safety reasons, and petitioned President Trump via change.org. However, others point out that the federal government doesn’t have the ability to make that change because Halloween isn’t a federal holiday. [1] [2] [3]
About 172 million Americans celebrated Halloween in 2019. The top costumes for kids were princess, superhero, Batman, a Star Wars character, and a witch. Almost 17% of Americans buy costumes for their pets, with the top choices being pumpkins, hot dogs, and bumblebees. Americans spent an estimated $8.8 billion, or $86.27 per person, in 2019 on Halloween goods such as candy to hand out, decorations, costumes, and pumpkins. [34]
Fewer Americans celebrated Halloween in 2020 (148 million), likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures, however those who did celebrate spent more individually on their festivities at $92.12 per person, or about $8.0 billion total. Top kids’ costumes were princess, Spiderman, superhero, ghost, and Batman. [35]
In 2021, experts expect consumers to spend a record $10.14 billion as more people plan to hand out candy or attend parties than in 2020. [36]
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Human-produced CO2 is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, and other “carbon sinks,” negating any climate changes.
A paper published in Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences found that some climate models overstated how much warming would occur from additional C02 emissions. About 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities has already been re-absorbed by the earth’s carbon sinks. From 2002-2011, 26% of human-caused CO2 emissions were absorbed specifically by the world’s oceans. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found evidence that forests are increasing their growth rates in response to elevated levels of CO2, which will in turn, lower atmospheric CO2 levels.
**Background**
Average surface temperatures on earth have risen more than 2°F over the past 100 years. During this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. This site explores the debate on whether climate change is caused by humans (also known as anthropogenic climate change).
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts. They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate changes.
The con side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun’s heat and ocean currents. They say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalizing marijuana hurts businesses by causing preventable accidents and lost productivity.
Workplace incidents involving employees under the influence of marijuana increased from 6% to 20% the year after legalization in Colorado. Employees who screened positive for marijuana use had 55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries, and absenteeism rates 75% higher than those who tested negative, according to a study done on postal workers. Paul L. Bittner, partner and vice chair of the Labor and Employment Group at Ice Miller law firm, said, “You not only lose productivity, but the bigger concern for employers is potential liability if there’s an accident and someone gets hurt or killed.”
Researchers found that using marijuana even just once a week can impact the parts of the brain that are linked to motivation, sometimes in irreversible ways. Long-term marijuana users produce less dopamine, a neurochemical considered crucial to summoning motivation. People who smoked marijuana in the previous year reported less dedication to their jobs than non-marijuana users, according to a study in the journal Addiction.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
# Homework Pros and Cons - Should Homework Be Banned?'
**Argument**
Homework allows parents to be involved with children’s learning.
Thanks to take-home assignments, parents are able to track what their children are learning at school as well as their academic strengths and weaknesses.
Data from a nationwide sample of elementary school students show that parental involvement in homework can improve class performance, especially among economically disadvantaged African-American and Hispanic students.
Research from Johns Hopkins University found that an interactive homework process known as TIPS (Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork) improves student achievement: “Students in the TIPS group earned significantly higher report card grades after 18 weeks (1 TIPS assignment per week) than did non-TIPS students.”
Homework can also help clue parents in to the existence of any learning disabilities their children may have, allowing them to get help and adjust learning strategies as needed. Duke University Professor Harris Cooper noted, “Two parents once told me they refused to believe their child had a learning disability until homework revealed it to them.”
**Background**
From dioramas to book reports, from algebraic word problems to research projects, whether students should be given homework, as well as the type and amount of homework, has been debated for over a century. [1]
While we are unsure who invented homework, we do know that the word “homework” dates back to ancient Rome. Pliny the Younger asked his followers to practice their speeches at home. Memorization exercises as homework continued through the Middle Ages and Enlightenment by monks and other scholars. [45]
In the 19th century, German students of the Volksschulen or “People’s Schools” were given assignments to complete outside of the school day. This concept of homework quickly spread across Europe and was brought to the United States by Horace Mann, who encountered the idea in Prussia. [45]
In the early 1900s, progressive education theorists, championed by the magazine Ladies’ Home Journal, decried homework’s negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, leading California to ban homework for students under 15 from 1901 until 1917. In the 1930s, homework was portrayed as child labor, which was newly illegal, but the prevailing argument was that kids needed time to do household chores. [1] [2] [45] [46]
Public opinion swayed again in favor of homework in the 1950s due to concerns about keeping up with the Soviet Union’s technological advances during the Cold War. And, in 1986, the US government included homework as an educational quality boosting tool. [3] [45]
A 2014 study found kindergarteners to fifth graders averaged 2.9 hours of homework per week, sixth to eighth graders 3.2 hours per teacher, and ninth to twelfth graders 3.5 hours per teacher. A 2014-2019 study found that teens spent about an hour a day on homework. [4] [44]
Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the very idea of homework as students were schooling remotely and many were doing all school work from home. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss asked, “Does homework work when kids are learning all day at home?” While students were mostly back in school buildings in fall 2021, the question remains of how effective homework is as an educational tool. [47]
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates due to global warming, causing additional climate changes.
About a quarter of the globe’s glacial loss from 1851-2010, and approximately two thirds of glacial loss between 1991-2010, is attributable directly to global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, global warming from human-produced greenhouse gases is a primary cause of the “unprecedented” retreat of glaciers around the world since the early 20th century.
Since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness. According to an IPCC report, “glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide” over the prior two decades, and there is “high confidence” (about an 8 out of 10 chance) that Northern Hemisphere spring snow continues to decrease. If the glaciers forming the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely, global sea levels could increase by up to 20 feet.
**Background**
Average surface temperatures on earth have risen more than 2°F over the past 100 years. During this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. This site explores the debate on whether climate change is caused by humans (also known as anthropogenic climate change).
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts. They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate changes.
The con side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the sun’s heat and ocean currents. They say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science. Read more background…
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: “The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.”
**Background**
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more background…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Jobs increasingly require college degrees.
Only 34% of American jobs require a high school diploma or less in 2017, compared to 72% in the 1970s. During the recession between Dec. 2007 and Jan. 2010, jobs requiring college degrees grew by 187,000, while jobs requiring some college or an associate’s degree fell by 1.75 million and jobs requiring a high school degree or less fell by 5.6 million. According to researchers at Georgetown University, 99% of job growth (or 11.5 million of 11.6 million jobs) between 2010 and 2016 went to workers with associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees or graduate degrees.
**Background**
People who argue that college is worth it contend that college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger salaries, and more work benefits than high school graduates. They say college graduates also have better interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children, and have proven their ability to achieve a major milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend that the debt from college loans is too high and delays graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or getting married. They say many successful people never graduated from college and that many jobs, especially trades jobs, do not require college degrees. Read more background…
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone.
To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to “stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A 2009 study and a 2017 follow-up study found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory.
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# US Supreme Court Packing - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Supreme Court is largely balanced. Court packing would increase political interference in an independent branch of government. It’s a slippery slope that would allow each president to add justices for rank political reasons.
The appointment of justices is mostly balanced historically. Since 1912, when the two major political parties settled into their current ideologies, 52 justices have been appointed: 28 by 10 Republican presidents and 24 by seven Democratic presidents.
Michael H. McGinley, JD, lawyer and former Supreme Court law clerk for Justice Alito, argued that packing the court would threaten the “rule of law and judicial independence.” He reasoned, “While the press tends to focus on the small handful of 5-4 decisions in high-profile cases, the justices more often find themselves in broad agreement on the most difficult legal issues of the day. And when there are disagreements, they are based on legitimate and reasonable differences of opinion about the law, not the justices’ personal policy preferences.”
Erin Hawely, JD, Associate Professor of Law and former law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts, and Heather Higgins, CEO of Independent Women’s voice, noted, “The argument about balance implies that the terms conservative and liberal apply to judges just like they do to political parties, even though those words have very different meanings and application when it comes to judicial philosophy.”
Even Vice President Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, is wary of court packing, stating in 2019, “No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day.” He later elaborated, “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”
As Washington Post reporter Amber Phillips explained, court packing can be seen as “a maneuver that could come back to haunt Democrats when they’re out of power. What’s to stop a Republican president and Republican Congress from expanding it even more, to get what they want? That was a feature of the Reconstruction era.”
Plus, the Supreme Court is fiercely independent, undercutting a simplistic view of its partisan leanings. Of the 67 decisions in 2019, the four Democrat-appointed judges voted together 51 times and the five Republican-appointees 37 times. Only 7 cases had the expected political split.
The Supreme Court should not be subjected to the rank political machinations at the heart of court packing.
**Background**
Court packing is increasing the number of seats on a court to change the ideological makeup of the court. [1] The US Constitution does not dictate the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but states only: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” [2]
The number of justices on the Court, set at nine since the mid-19th century, has changed over the years. The court was founded in 1789 with six justices, but was reduced to five in 1801 and increased to six in 1802, followed by small changes over the subsequent 67 years. [14] [15] As explained in Encyclopaedia Britannica, “In 1807 a seventh justice was added, followed by an eighth and a ninth in 1837 and a tenth in 1863. The size of the court has sometimes been subject to political manipulation; for example, in 1866 Congress provided for the gradual reduction (through attrition) of the court to seven justices to ensure that President Andrew Johnson, whom the House of Representatives later impeached and the Senate only narrowly acquitted, could not appoint a new justice. The number of justices reached eight before Congress, after Johnson had left office, adopted new legislation (1869) setting the number at nine, where it has remained ever since.” [3]
The idea of court packing dates to 1937 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed adding a new justice to the Supreme Court for every justice who refused to retire at 70 years old, up to a maximum of 15 justices. The effort is frequently framed as a battle between “an entrenched, reactionary Supreme Court, which overturned a slew of Roosevelt’s New Deal economic reforms, against a hubristic president willing to take the unprecedented step of asking Congress to appoint six new, and sympathetic, justices to the bench,” according to Cicero Institute Senior Policy Advisor Judge Glock, PhD. Roosevelt’s proposal was seen by many as a naked power grab for control of a second branch of government. Plus, as Glock points out, a then new law reducing Supreme Court pensions was preventing retirements at the very time Roosevelt was calling for them. [4] [5] [6]
The contemporary debate has been heavily influenced by events following the Feb. 13, 2016, death of conservative Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Citing the upcoming 2016 election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to consider President Barack Obama’s liberal Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. At the time, there were 342 days remaining in Obama’s presidency, 237 days until the 2016 election, and neither the 2016 Democratic nor Republican nominee had been chosen. Because the Senate approval process was delayed until 2017, the next president, Donald Trump, was allowed to appoint a new justice (conservative Neil Gorsuch) to what many Democrats called a “stolen seat” that should have been filled by Obama. [5] [7]
The court packing debate was reinvigorated in 2019 with the appointment of conservative Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump after liberal-leaning swing vote Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in July 2018. [1] In the wake of this appointment, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, then also a 2020 presidential candidate, suggested expanding the court to 15 justices in the Oct. 15, 2019, Democratic presidential debate. [8]
Then largely brushed aside as “radical,” the topic resurfaced once again upon the death of liberal stalwart Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sep. 18, 2020. Liberals, and some conservatives, argued that the 2016 precedent should be followed and that Justice Ginsburg’s seat should remain empty until after the 2020 presidential election or the Jan. 2021 presidential inauguration. However, McConnell and the Republicans in control of the Senate, and thus the approval process, indicated they would move forward with a Trump nomination without delay. McConnell defended these actions by stating the President and the Senate are of the same party (which was not the case in 2016, negating—from his perspective—that incident as a precedent that needed following), and thus the country had confirmed Republican rule. [5] [7] [9]
Others argued as well that, since there was a chance that the results of the 2020 election could be challenged in the courts, and perhaps even at the Supreme Court level (due to concerns over the handling of mailed-in ballots), it was critical for an odd number of justices to sit on the Court (for an even number, such as eight, could mean a split 4-4 decision on the critical question of who would be deemed the next U.S. president, sending the country into a constitutional crisis). At the time of McConnell’s Sept. 18 announcement via Twitter, there were 124 days left in Trump’s term and 45 days until the 2020 election. Some called the impending nomination to replace Ginsburg and the 2016/2017 events a version of court packing by Republicans. [5] [7] [9]
Supreme Court nominees can be confirmed by the US Senate with a simple majority vote, with the Vice President called in to break a 50-50 tie. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 26, 2020 with a 52-48 vote to replace Justice Ginsburg, eight days before the 2020 election. [7] [24]
|
# Police Body Cameras - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Police body cameras are too expensive and unreliable for many police departments.
Equipping police departments with body cameras is extremely expensive as forces have to budget not only for the camera but also for ancillary equipment (such as a car charger or mount), training, data storage facilities, extra staff to manage the video data, and maintenance costs. Baltimore Police entered a body-worn camera program in 2016 for $11.3 million. As of June 25, 2020, the costs had tripled to $35.1 million.
Many police departments, especially smaller departments with smaller budgets, have suspended body-worn camera programs citing rising costs of the cameras, maintenance of the programs, employees, and data storage.
A trial in Edmonton, California, found that body-worn cameras had an insufficient battery length for daily policing, especially in cold weather when battery life diminished more quickly.
A sheriff’s office in Virginia stopped using body cameras due to the unreliability of their on-off buttons and poor integration with their IT systems that resulted in the system inaccurately matching camera footage to the officer wearing the camera. As the cameras, supporting equipment, and networks age, costs will only rise to maintain or replace equipment.
In a perhaps extreme but cautionary example, in Oct, 2018 a Staten Island, New York, officer’s body camera burst into flames while the officer was wearing the device. He was luckily not injured, but the department was forced to recall thousands of cameras.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Police body cameras (also called body-worn cameras) are small cameras worn on a law enforcement officer’s chest or head to record interactions between the officer and the public. The cameras have a microphone to capture sound and internal data storage to save video footage for later review. [37] [41]
According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, “[t]he video and audio recordings from BWCs [body-worn cameras] can be used by law enforcement to demonstrate transparency to their communities; to document statements, observations, behaviors, and other evidence; and to deter unprofessional, illegal, and inappropriate behaviors by both law enforcement and the public.” [41] Police body cameras are in use around the world from Australia and Uruguay to the United Kingdom and South Africa. [19] [32] [35] [36]
After the police shooting death of Michael Brown on Aug. 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, President Barack Obama requested $263 million to fund body camera programs and police training on Dec. 1, 2014. [38] [46] As a result the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented the Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program (BWC-PIP). Between fiscal year (FY) 2015 and FY 2019, the BWC-PIP has given over 493 awards worth over a collective $70 million to law enforcement agencies in 47 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. Agencies in Maine, Montana, and North Dakota have not been awarded federal body camera funding. [40] [42] [43] [44]
As of Oct. 29, 2018, the most recently available information, 36 states and DC had specific legislation about the use of police body cameras. At that time, another four states had pending body camera legislation. [45]
On June 7, 2021, US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, JD, directed the ATF, DEA, FBI and US Marshals “to develop and submit for review” body-worn camera policies in which agents wear cameras during “(1) a pre-planned attempt to serve an arrest warrant or other pre-planned arrest, including the apprehension of fugitives sought on state and local warrants; or (2) the execution of a search or seizure warrant or order.” [63]
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
People who use social media are prone to social isolation.
Social media can exacerbate feelings of disconnect (especially for youth with disabilities), and put children at higher risk for depression, low self-esteem, and eating disorders. The “passive consumption” of social media (scanning posts without commenting) is related to loneliness.
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should Election Day Be a National Holiday? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Changing state laws and individual companies’ policies would be more effective ways to help people vote.
According to the AFL-CIO, 30 states require employers to allow employees time off for voting. Arizona, for example, allows employees who do not have three consecutive hours before or after work when the polls are open to take paid time off to vote at the start or end of their work days. Creating laws in all states that let people vote before or after work would be more effective than a national holiday, which would quickly be viewed as just another day off to enjoy.
Companies including Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Farmers Insurance, Kaiser Permanente, Patagonia, and Walmart have joined Make Time to Vote campaign, which encourages employers to provide paid time off, schedule no meetings on Election Day, and give information on mail-in ballots and early voting.
Patagonia, an outdoor clothing retailer, paused operation on Nov. 6, 2018 so that all employees could vote. Rose Marcario, CEO, stated, “demonstrating your company’s commitment to voting will reinforce how essential it is that every eligible voter shows up. And it will, in turn, help strengthen the idea that businesses can and will come together for a worthy common purpose: protecting our democracy by empowering all American workers to be good citizens.”
**Background**
Election Day in the United States has occurred on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November ever since President John Tyler signed an 1845 law establishing a specific voting day for the entire country. [1] The decision was made taking into account farmers, a large portion of the voting constituency at the time, who would not have been able to travel to polling places in winter months or during planting or harvest times. [2] Sundays were for rest and worship, and on Wednesdays farmers typically sold their crops at the market, making Tuesdays the best day of the week. [1]
Over time, voting rights expanded from only white, male landowners age 21 and older to include women and people of color, as well as citizens age 18 and up, resulting in a dramatic increase in the voting-eligible population and a shift in voter demographics. [3] In 1800, 83% of the American labor force was agrarian, but today only 11% of total US employment is agriculture-related. [4][5]
The United States currently has 10 national holidays, including Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Christmas Day. [6] Election Day could be made a holiday if a bill were passed by the House and Senate then signed into law by the president. Approximately two million people who work for the federal government would be given a paid day off, and private companies might follow suit. [7] A handful of states have made election day a state holiday, including New York, Hawaii, Kentucky, and, in Apr. 2020, Virginia. [36]
Would making Election Day a federal holiday increase voter turnout and celebrate democracy? Or is it an optimistic idea that would exclude already disadvantaged voters while failing to increase turnout?
|
# Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
A right to health care could save lives.
According to a study from Harvard researchers, “lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year,” which translates into a 40% increased risk of death among the uninsured. Another study found that more than 13,000 deaths occur each year just in the 55-64 year old age group due to lack of health insurance coverage. A Commonwealth Fund study found that due to a lack of timely and effective health care, the United States ranked at the bottom of a list of 16 rich nations in terms of preventable mortality and a further study published in the Lancet ranked the United States 29 out of 195 countries and territories in terms of preventable mortality. In Italy, Spain, France, Australia, Israel, and Norway, all countries with a right to health care, people live up to five years longer than people in the United States.
**Background**
27.5 million people in the United States (8.5% of the US population) do not have health insurance. Among the 91.5% who do have health insurance, 67.3% have private insurance while 34.4% have government-provided coverage through programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. Employer-based health insurance is the most common type of coverage, applying to 55.1% of the US population. The United States is the only nation among the 37 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations that does not have universal health care either in practice or by constitutional right.
Proponents of the right to health care say that no one in one of the richest nations on earth should go without health care. They argue that a right to health care would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, reduce overall health care spending, help small businesses, and that health care should be an essential government service.
Opponents argue that a right to health care amounts to socialism and that it should be an individual’s responsibility, not the government’s role, to secure health care. They say that government provision of health care would decrease the quality and availability of health care, and would lead to larger government debt and deficits. Read more background…
|
# Is Golf a Sport?'
**Argument**
Golf is not consistently competitive enough to meet the definition of sport.
Golf involves competition, keeping score, and declaring a winner, but those qualities alone do not make it a sport. Spelling bees, poker, and darts are competitions with scores and winners, which are sometimes broadcast on the sports network ESPN, but those activities are not sports.
The fact that golfers are able to be competitive professionally so far past the age of peak athleticism — age 26 according to a June 2011 peer-reviewed study — shows that golf is not competitive enough to be a sport. For example, Tom Watson nearly won one of the biggest tournaments in professional golf, the British Open, at age 59 in 2009. Jack Nicklaus won 11 of his 18 majors after turning 30.
According to Chris Mile, President of Miles of Golf, “‘Golf’ and ‘Competitive Golf’ are almost two different sports. Both are fun but the competitive part of the game makes it really different. Golf is mostly about being with friends and enjoying the beauty of the game, the exercise, and the challenge. Competitive Golf should have everything that Golf has but with the added twist of beating other players. The addition of this little variation really changes the game.” Golf is frequently played during business meetings or for social events, without much or any competition. By contrast, no one distinguishes between “tennis” and “competitive tennis,” because the goal is always for one side to win.
**Background**
Golf in the United States is a $70 billion annual industry with 24.1 million players. A 2016 poll by Public Policy Polling found that nineteen percent of Americans call themselves golf fans, down from twenty-three percent in 2015. The debate over whether golf is a sport rages on the internet, in bars, amongst sportswriters, and even on the golf course. Read more background…
|
# Daylight Saving Time Pros and Cons - Top Advantages and Disadvantages'
**Argument**
DST is expensive.
William F. Shughart II, PhD, Economist at Utah State University, states that the simple act of changing clocks costs Americans $1.7 billion in lost opportunity cost based on average hourly wages, meaning that the ten or so minutes spent moving clocks, watches, and devices forward and backward could be spent on something more productive.
The Air Transport Association estimated that DST cost the airline industry $147 million dollars in 2007 thanks to confused time schedules with countries who do not participate in the time change.
According to the Lost-Hour Economic Index, moving the clocks forward has a total cost to the US economy of $434 million nationally, factoring in health issues, decreased productivity, and workplace injuries.
**Background**
In the United States, Daylight Saving Time (DST) began on Sunday, Mar. 13, 2022 at 2am with clocks “springing forward,” and will end on Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022, when clocks will “fall back” to Standard Time.
DST was implemented in the United States nationally on Mar. 31, 1918 as a wartime effort to save an hour’s worth of fuel (gas or oil) each day to light lamps and coal to heat homes. It was repealed nationwide in 1919, and then maintained by some individual localities (such as New York City) in what Time Magazine called “a chaos of clocks” until 1966 when the Uniform Time Act made DST consistent nationwide. [8]
DST has been “permanently” implemented nationwide twice, once during World War II and once in the 1970s. As the war ended, only 17% wanted to keep “war time” (DST) year round. In the winter of 1973-1974, DST was used to conserve fuel during the energy crisis. 53% opposed keeping DST, probably because in some parts of the country (primarily western edges of time zones) wouldn’t see the sun rise until after 9am. [39] [40]
63 countries used Daylight Saving Time in 2021, while 9 countries used DST in some jurisdictions and not others (like the United States), and 173 countries did not use DST in 2021. In the United States, 48 states participate in Daylight Saving Time. Arizona, Hawaii, some Amish communities, and the American territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not observe DST. [36] [37] [38]
55% of Americans said they are not disrupted by the time change, 28% report a minor disruption, and 13% said the change is a major disruption. However, 40% of Americans would prefer to stay in Standard Time all year and 31% would prefer to stay in Daylight Saving Time all year, eliminating the time change. 28% of Americans would keep the time change twice a year. [20] [34]
On Mar. 15, 2022, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill that would make DST permanent as of Nov. 20, 2023 if approved by the House and signed by President Biden. The delay is meant to give airlines and other transportation providers time to adjust to the change as they set schedules months ahead of time. [41]
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Education:
Clinton’s Goals 2000 program did not ensure uniform quality of standards among all the states because he compromised on oversight to get the program passed. The impact therefore varied by state and Clinton never fulfilled his goal of equalizing education standards and improving results for all students. By 2000, six years after IASA was implemented, only 17 states were in full compliance with the standards.
**Background**
William Jefferson Clinton, known as Bill Clinton, served as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates, and a budget surplus. They give him credit for eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare, despite being forced to deal with a Republican-controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-plagued presidency because it was the result of other factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial crisis that began in 2007. They point to his impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass universal health care coverage as further evidence that he was not a good president. Read more background…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Crime:
The number of federal prisoners doubled under Clinton, and 58 percent of them were serving time for drug-related offenses. Resources were geared towards incarceration instead of rehabilitation or crime prevention. Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill was filled with “pork spending” that distributed $10 billion to states and special interest groups.
**Background**
William Jefferson Clinton, known as Bill Clinton, served as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates, and a budget surplus. They give him credit for eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare, despite being forced to deal with a Republican-controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-plagued presidency because it was the result of other factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial crisis that began in 2007. They point to his impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass universal health care coverage as further evidence that he was not a good president. Read more background…
|
# Employer Vaccine Mandates - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Employer vaccine mandates can doubly harm marginalized communities.
People of color and LGBTQ+ people have high rates of healthcare distrust due to current and historical medical mistreatment and discrimination, which can translate into vaccine hesitancy.
As the Commonwealth Fund explained, “The medical establishment has a long history of mistreating Black Americans — from gruesome experiments on enslaved people to the forced sterilizations of Black women and the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study that withheld treatment from hundreds of Black men for decades to let doctors track the course of the disease.” These concerns have continued into the modern medicine era and are applicable to other communities of color, including Hispanics and Native Americans.
LGBTQ+ people frequently face discrimination, refusal of care, assault, and other hurdles when accessing healthcare, and they therefore often forgo or delay medical care.
Additionally, these communities face pay gaps, high rates of unemployment, and job insecurity. In Feb. 2021, Black (9.9%) and Hispanic (8.5%) workers had higher unemployment rates than white workers (5.6%). A 2020 report indicated 17% of LGBTQ+ people lost jobs due to the pandemic, compared to 13% of the general population. Combining a legitimate, historical distrust of institutionalized healthcare with a threat of job loss is not good policy.
**Background**
While the current debate about employer vaccine mandates in the United States centers upon COVID-19 requirements, mandates and the debate about them are as old as the country itself.
The first American “vaccine” mandate was issued by then General George Washington in 1777. Washington ordered Continental Army troops to be inoculated against smallpox with the precursor to the smallpox vaccine during the Revolutionary War. According to Andrew Wehrman, Associate Professor of History at Central Michigan University, the soldiers themselves “were the ones calling for it.… There’s no record that I have seen — and I’ve looked — of any soldier turning it down, protesting it.” [1]
Continental Army soldiers may have welcomed inoculation, but plenty of other people did not. After the Reverend Cotton Mather promoted and introduced smallpox inoculation in Boston in 1721 to battle a deadly outbreak of the viral disease, a man threw a bomb through a window of his home with the note: “Cotton Mather, you dog, dam you! I’ll inoculate you with this; with a pox to you.” In fact, most of the doctors in Boston were against inoculation; they even formed an organization called the “Society of Physicians Anti-Inoculators.” Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse introduced a smallpox vaccine into the country in 1800, courtesy of his friend, the British discoverer of the vaccine, Edward Jenner. The Founding Fathers welcomed the innovation, though too late in the case of Benjamin Franklin, who initially battled inoculation until his un-inoculated four-year-old son died from smallpox. “I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it [a preventative dose of smallpox] to him by inoculation,” admitted Franklin in his 1771 autobiography. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Most early vaccine mandates were implemented by state and local governments. For example, Massachusetts was the first state to mandate vaccines for school children in the 1850s. By 1900, half of the US states had school vaccine mandates; by 1980, all US states had them. [2] [8] [9]
The debate about mandates had taken full form by the end of the 1800s, with dissenting opinions looking much like contemporary arguments: “Some Americans opposed mandates on the grounds of personal liberty; some because they believed lawmakers were in cahoots with vaccine makers; and some because of safety concerns.” [1]
In 1905, the US Supreme Court entered the debate, ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that compulsory vaccination laws enacted by state and local governments were constitutional and enforceable. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that individual liberty is not absolute: “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.… [T]he fundamental principle of the social compact… [is] that all shall be governed by certain laws for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men.” The ruling allowed for medical exemptions, and it has been considered the authority on the subject ever since. School vaccine mandates were subsequently upheld by the US Supreme Court in Zucht v. King (1922). [2] [10]
During World War II, the US military began mandating a host of vaccines for service members, including typhoid, yellow fever, and tetanus. As of 2021, the US military required service members to get 18 vaccines, including adenovirus, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, flu, meningococcal, MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), polio, tetanus-diphtheria, and varicella (chicken pox). Members can be required to be vaccinated against other diseases based on service location: anthrax, haemophilus influenzae type B, Japanese encephalitis, pneumococcal disease, rabies, smallpox, typhoid fever, and yellow fever. Civilian military employees are also subject to vaccine mandates, including the COVID-19 vaccine. The US military allows administrative, medical, and religious vaccine exemptions, though they are rare. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Other than the US military, healthcare facilities are the most common type of employer to mandate vaccines. For years, some healthcare workers have been required to have multiple vaccinations including: hepatitis B, influenza, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), pertussis, pneumococcal disease, and varicella (chickenpox). [16]
Healthcare workers, among employees in other industries, are also increasingly required to have COVID-19 vaccinations. A Dec. 2, 2021, survey found that 25% of employers planned on implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, regardless of a federal mandate. 32% only planned to implement a mandate if the federal government required employee vaccination. And 33% said they would enforce a testing protocol rather than mandate COVID-19 vaccines. [17]
Many states and DC have implemented COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine-or-test mandates as employers. The mandates may cover executive branch staff, teachers at state schools and pre-schools, state-run healthcare facility employees, and other state government employees. Conversely, several states have enacted laws banning employers from implementing vaccine mandates. [18] [19]
The US Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 13, 2022, that the Biden Administration does not have the authority to impose a COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate. The White House mandate would have required people who work for employers with 100 or more employees to either be vaccinated or tested weekly and wear a mask indoors if unvaccinated. The Court allowed the White House COVID-19 vaccine mandate to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments. [20]
In the wake of this ruling, many large companies were rethinking the implementation or enforcement of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Many companies, including Carhartt, CitiGroup, and United Airlines, maintained their mandates, while others, including Boeing, GE, and Starbucks, did not. [21]
Whatever the status of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many employers have legally required certain employees to be vaccinated against other diseases. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that employers may require employees to be vaccinated as long as the businesses “comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.” Those accommodations include but are not limited to medical and religious exemptions. [22]
|
# Is Cell Phone Radiation Safe?'
**Argument**
There has been no rise in the rate of brain cancers despite a massive increase in the use of cell phones.
According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers between the years 1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell phone use dramatically increased during those same years.
Between 2004 and 2010 there was a slight increase that was attributed to better tracking and recording of cases. During the same time period, cell phone use increased 62.7% from 182,140,362 subscribers in 2004 to 296,285,629 in 2010.
As of Apr. 2021, 97% of Americans used a cell phone (85% used a smartphone), compared to 2011 when just 35% used a cell phone. In 2011, the observed rate of new brain and nervous system cancers was 6.2 per 100,000 people. In 2018, the newest data offered by the National Cancer Institute, the rate was 6.0, a slight decline in cases as cell phone adoption has dramatically increased.
Globally, there are more cell phones than people as of 2019. Brain tumors account for only 1.8% of cancer cases worldwide.
**Background**
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media can lead to stress and offline relationship problems.
31% of teens who use social media have fought with a friend because of something that happened online. A 2016 study found that overuse of social media as an adolescent may decrease success in relationships later in life as online communication hinders the development of conflict management skills and awareness of interpersonal cues. One study found that the more Facebook friends a person has, the more stressful Facebook is to use. Researchers have found that “active Twitter use leads to greater amounts of Twitter-related conflict among romantic partners, which in turn leads to infidelity, breakup, and divorce.”
**Background**
Around seven out of ten Americans (72%) use social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, up from 26% in 2008. [26] [189]. On social media sites, users may develop biographical profiles, communicate with friends and strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos, music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the online communities promote increased interaction with friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and students valuable access to educational support and materials; facilitate social and political change; and disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Raising the minimum wage would not reduce crime.
According to a 2013 study by Boston College economists, increasing the minimum wage leads to reduced employment which leads to an increase in thefts, drug sales, and violent crime. Their results indicate that “crime will increase by 1.9 percentage points among 14-30 year-olds as the minimum wage increases.” Researchers found that between 1977 and 2012 increases in the minimum wage resulted in “no significant change” in the rates of violent crime or property crime.
**Background**
The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. 29 states plus the District of Columbia (DC) have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 1.8 million workers (or 2.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.
Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.
Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring; that increases have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile; and that raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular. Read more background…
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
OTC status for birth control pills would decrease privacy.
If birth control pills were available on pharmacy aisles, purchases would be public and subject to the judgment and gossip of anyone in sight. Many people may prefer to keep their contraceptive use between them and their doctors.
Olivia Alperstein, Communications and Policy Associate at Congressional Progressive Caucus Center, stated “The concept of over-the-counter birth control ignores the grim reality that not all people can just go to a pharmacy and easily purchase birth control. Some face religious and social backlash for buying pills in full view of their pharmacist and people from their community.… Some are young and under a certain state’s law can’t purchase birth control without a parent’s consent. Some are transgender or gender-nonconforming.… The list goes on.”
59% of sexually active teen girls would rather stop getting all reproductive health care services than have to tell their parents about their contraceptive use. But, 99% of those teens would continue having sex. Teens want their contraceptive use kept private and accessing birth control in the middle of a pharmacy where they might run into a neighbor or teacher could stop some teens from preventing pregnancy.
**Background**
Of the 72.2 million American women of reproductive age, 64.9% use a contraceptive. Of those, 9.1 million (12.6% of contraceptive users) use birth control pills, which are the second most commonly used method of contraception in the United States after female sterilization (aka tubal ligation or “getting your tubes tied”). The Pill is currently available by prescription only, and a debate has emerged about whether the birth control pill should be available over-the-counter (OTC), which means the Pill would be available along with other drugs such as Tylenol and Benadryl in drug store aisles. Since 1976, more than 90 drugs have switched from prescription to OTC status, including Sudafed (1976), Advil (1984), Rogaine (1996), Prilosec (2003), and Allegra (2011). Read more background…
|
# Ride-Sharing Apps - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Ride-hailing increases mobility for seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income populations, and decreases discrimination experienced with taxis.
Ride-hailing initiatives such as Uber Assist, which offers door-to-door assistance, serve the estimated 26 million US seniors who rely on others for transportation. Uber and Lyft partner with senior organizations, retirement homes, and healthcare providers to arrange rides for seniors who aren’t comfortable using technology. Some ride-hailing companies, such as Mobility 4 All and Lift Hero, have specially trained drivers and exist specifically to offer transportation options for seniors and people with disabilities.
Lyft offers discounted rides to grocery stores for low-income households to increase access to healthy food options such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and also pledged $1.5 million to transport veterans and people with low incomes to medical appointments and job interviews.
Researchers noted high levels of discrimination in taxi service towards black riders, who have a 73% higher chance of having their taxi canceled and wait 6-15 minutes longer than white riders. Anne Brown, PhD, Assistant Professor of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon, found that “ridehail services nearly eliminate the racial-ethnic differences in service quality.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The first Uber ride was on July 5, 2010 in San Francisco, CA. The app launched internationally in 2011 and reached one billion rides on Dec. 30, 2015, quickly followed by five billion on May 20, 2017 and 10 billion on June 10, 2018. [40]
On May 22, 2012, Lyft launched in San Francisco as a part of Zimride and expanded to 60 cities in 2014 and to 100 more in 2017, at which point Lyft claimed more than one million rides a day. On Nov. 13, 2017, Lyft went international, allowing the company to reach one billion rides on Sep. 18, 2018. [41]
Other ride-hailing and ride-sharing apps include Gett (which partners with Lyft in the US), Curb, Wingz, Via, Scoop, and Bridj. [42]
36% of Americans said they used ride-hailing services such as Uber or Lyft, according to a Jan. 4, 2019 Pew Research Center Survey. Use is up significantly from 2015 when just 15% had used the apps. [38]
But use varies among populations. 45% of urban residents, 51% of people who were 18 to 29, 53% of people who earned $75,000 or more per year, and 55% of people with college degrees, used the apps, compared to 19% of rural residents, 24% of people aged 50 or older, 24% of people who earn $30,000 or less per year, and 20% of people with a high school diploma or less. [38]
In 2018, 70% of Uber and Lyft trips occurred in nine big metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. [3]
Uber officially overtook yellow cabs in New York City in July 2017, when it reported an average of 289,000 trips per day compared to 277,000 taxi rides. More than 2.61 billion ride-hailing trips were taken in 2017, a 37% increase over the 1.90 billion trips in 2016. Ride-hailing trips were down significantly in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [3] [4] [39]
|
# Immigrant Sanctuary Cities - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Sanctuary policies prevent local and state police officers from doing their jobs.
Sanctuary policies prevent police from investigating, questioning, and arresting people who have broken federal immigration law. Many crimes, violent and otherwise, could be prevented if local law enforcement in sanctuary cities could arrest undocumented immigrants for their first crime on US soil—illegal entry into the country—and turn them over to federal law enforcement.
According to Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, many Salvadorian gang members living in Los Angeles entered the United States illegally, but because of sanctuary policies, LA police officers cannot arrest the undocumented immigrants for illegal entry. Instead, law enforcement has to wait for a second crime to be committed to get the criminals off the street.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
While there is no official legal definition of “sanctuary city,” the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to undocumented immigrants, often with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. [2]
Some argue that sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, New York, and Chicago should not receive federal funding because they are not enforcing federal immigration laws. Others say that sanctuary city policies protect both citizens and undocumented immigrants.
There are 11 states, 40 cites, and 143 counties listed as sanctuary jurisdictions by the Center for Immigration Studies as of Mar. 22, 2021. [32]
Florida banned sanctuary cities on June 14, 2019, joining at least 11 other states with similar rules, according to CNN. Representatives in other states have since pushed for sanctuary cities bans, including New Hampshire, Georgia, and Oklahoma. [22] [24] [25] [26]
Sanctuary cities grew from the Sanctuary Movement the late 1980s and early 1990s in which religious congregations began helping undocumented Salvadorian and Guatemalan families settle in the United States. They acted in direct defiance of US immigration authorities, who denied over 90% of asylum requests by immigrants fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. The sanctuary activists believed that the federal government was breaking international and domestic refugee law. [1] [2]
Los Angeles was the first city to enact sanctuary policies, with a focus on undocumented immigrants already in the United States. The chief of police enacted Special Order No. 40 on Nov. 27, 1979, stating that police officers should not inquire about immigration status and should provide city services to everyone equally. San Francisco followed suit, passing the “City of Refuge” resolution in 1985 and “City of Refuge” ordinance in 1989, requiring that all city employees stop immigration policing and provide city services to all residents regardless of immigration status. [2] [12] [29]
The Trump administration held that the federal government should be able to withhold funds from sanctuary cities for their non-compliance with federal laws. The Biden administration reversed that policy. [22] [27] [28] [30][31]
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts.
A study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. A 2018 survey by the New York State School Boards Association found that over one-third of school districts declined to pursue dismissal of poorly performing tenured teachers because of the costly and “cumbersome” process. In a study of 25 school districts, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found that it can take between one and six years to remove an experienced tenured teacher, concluding that, “the line from dismal performance to dismissal has hardly been streamlined. For the most part, state and local policies create a tortuous maze of paperwork, regulations, and directives.”
**Background**
Teacher tenure is the increasingly controversial form of job protection that public school teachers in 46 states receive after 1-5 years on the job. An estimated 2.3 million teachers have tenure.
Proponents of tenure argue that it protects teachers from being fired for personal or political reasons, and prevents the firing of experienced teachers to hire less expensive new teachers. They contend that since school administrators grant tenure, neither teachers nor teacher unions should be unfairly blamed for problems with the tenure system.
Opponents of tenure argue that this job protection makes the removal of poorly performing teachers so difficult and costly that most schools end up retaining their bad teachers. They contend that tenure encourages complacency among teachers who do not fear losing their jobs, and that tenure is no longer needed given current laws against job discrimination. Read more background…
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Obesity can be a genetic disorder such as sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs, which are classified as diseases.
Researchers have identified 79 genetic syndromes associated with obesity. Studies have shown that obesity can be inherited like height. Genetic disposition plays a large role in determining if a person will be obese. A May 2014 study published in the Journal of Molecular Psychology linked higher rates of obesity to the “fat mass and obesity association” (FTO) gene. The FTO gene reportedly lowers activity in the part of the brain that “controls impulses and the response to the taste and texture of food,” so people with the gene are more likely to eat more fatty foods and eat more impulsively as they age. A 1990 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on body mass in twins not raised in the same home concluded, “genetic influences on body-mass index are substantial, whereas the childhood environment has little or no influence.” In addition to genetic predisposition, almost 10% of morbidly obese people have defects in the genes that regulate food intake, metabolism, and weight.
**Background**
The United States is the second most obese industrialized country in the world. 39.6% of American adults in 2016 were obese, compared to 14% in the mid-1970s. Obesity accounts for 19.8% of deaths and 21% of healthcare spending in the United States.
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it meets the definition of disease; it decreases life expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease because it is a preventable risk factor for other diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is caused by exercising too little. Read more background…
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
US churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy.
If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), “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.”
**Background**
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year. Read more background…
|
# Fracking Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
The US should not stake national security and energy independence on a finite, market-dependent resource.
Rebecca Harrington, Deputy Editor of Business Insider, explained, “It’s easy to see why we should produce our own energy — relying on other countries for oil, natural gas, and coal (the biggest sources used today) can get complicated. It can lead to wars, or compromise our relationships with foreign powers…. Fossil fuels will eventually run out around the world, however. Experts estimate that the US only has enough natural gas reserves to last 93 more years, and enough coal to last about 283 years. Putting politics aside, there is only one surefire way to be completely and indefinitely energy independent: adopt 100% renewable energy.”
As the COVID-19 pandemic has starkly illustrated, demand for natural gas can decrease dramatically. According to the International Energy Agency, global fossil fuel energy demand will decrease by 6% in 2020, the largest drop on record: “In absolute terms, the decline is unprecedented — the equivalent of losing the entire energy demand of India, the world’s third largest energy consumer.” Renewable energies are the only energy source with growth in 2020, directly reflecting the value they hold for US energy independence.
**Background**
Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement. Then, a horizontal well is drilled in the layer of rock that contains natural gas. After that, fracking fluid is pumped into the well at an extremely high pressure so that it fractures the rock in a way that allows oil and gas to flow through the cracks to the surface. [1]
Colonel Edward A. L. Roberts first developed a version of fracking in 1862. During the Civil War at the Battle of Fredericksburg, Roberts noticed how artillery blasts affected channels of water. The idea of “shooting the well” was further developed by lowering a sort of torpedo into an oil well. The torpedo was then detonated, which increased oil flow. [2]
In the 1940s, explosives were replaced by high-pressure liquids, beginning the era of hydraulic fracturing. The 21st century brought two further innovations: horizontal drilling and slick water (a mix of water, sand, and chemicals) to increase fluid flow. Spurred by increased financial investment and global oil prices, fracking picked up speed and favor. About one million oil wells were fracked between 1940 and 2014, with about one third of the wells fracked after 2000. [2] [3]
Most US states allow fracking, though four states have banned the practice as of Feb. 2021: Vermont (2012), New York (temporarily in 2014; permanently in 2020), Maryland (2017), and Washington (2019). In Apr. 2021, California banned new fracking projects as of 2024. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [32]
Fracking was a hot-button issue during the US presidential race of 2020, with President Trump firmly in favor of fracking and Vice President Biden expressing more concern about the practice, especially on federal lands.
|
# Pokémon Go - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Playing the game can lead to injury.
According to news reports, users have tripped, fallen into a lake, crashed a car, fallen on railroad tracks resulting in an amputated leg, and sustained other injuries while playing.
The National Safety Council released a statement urging people to be more cautious while using Pokémon Go, saying in part, “Reports of close calls associated with playing Pokémon Go already are rolling in. The Council urges gamers to consider safety over their scores before a life is lost. No race to ‘capture’ a cartoon monster is worth a life.”
Head and neck injuries due to distracted drivers spiked after the launch of Pokémon Go. Distracted users are also inflicting injury on others. A driver playing Pokemon Go struck and killed an 85-year-old woman in Japan.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Pokémon Go had more than 21 million daily active users in the United States in its debut week in July 2016, becoming the most popular US mobile game ever. It has surpassed social media apps such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Twitter for daily use on Android devices. [1] [2] The basic premise of the game is that players try to capture Pokémon in a kind of scavenger hunt that uses the GPS on their mobile phones while walking around in the real world. The game’s slogan is “Gotta catch ’em all.” [3]
As of July 8, 2020, Pokémon Go was still the most popular location-based game with 576.7 million unique downloads globally in the game’s first four years. The game is estimated to have earned $3.6 billion worldwide since 2016, with $445.3 million in the first half of 2020 during COVID-19 (coronavirus) lockdowns, via micro-transactions within the game. [18]
|
# Should the Voting Age be Lowered in the US? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
16-year-olds are just as knowledgeable about civics and have the same ability to make good voting choices as older voters.
A study in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science found that, “On measures of civic knowledge, political skills, political efficacy, and tolerance, 16-year-olds, on average, are obtaining scores similar to those of adults… Adolescents in this age range are developmentally ready to vote.”
Scientists believe that “cold cognition” skills, those used to make the kind of informed, well-thought out choices needed in voting, are solidly established in 16-year-olds.
Austria lowered the voting age to 16 in 2007. According to Markus Wagner, PhD, Social Sciences Professor at the University of Vienna, and coauthors, studies of subsequent elections show “the quality of these [younger] citizens’ choices is similar to that of older voters, so they do cast votes in ways that enable their interests to be represented equally well.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
From the 1990s to the present, elected officials in several US states have made unsuccessful attempts to lower the voting age to 16, and sometimes even younger. [1] Student activism in the wake of the Feb. 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, brought new life to the debate about letting younger people vote in elections. [2]
Internationally, about a dozen countries allow citizens to vote at age 16, sometimes with conditions such as being employed or married, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. [48]
A constitutional amendment to lower the US voting age to 16 would require approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states). [3] Alternatively, state legislatures could pass laws allowing younger people to vote in their states. [4]
Until the 1970s, the voting age in America was 21. [43] A debate over lowering it to 18 began during World War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreased the military draft age to 18. [44] President Eisenhower called for citizens ages 18 to 21 to be included in the political process in his 1954 State of the Union address. [44] But lawmakers didn’t take action until marches and demonstrations drew attention to the fact that young people who were being drafted to fight in Vietnam did not have the ability to vote in most states. [43]
Congress proposed the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1971, which stated, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” [45] The ratification process, which required approval from 38 states, was completed in about three months, the shortest amount of time of any amendment in US history. [46]
|
# Should the Voting Age be Lowered in the US? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
At age 16, people should have a voice in the laws that affect their lives and a stake in the future of their country.
A US Senate report cited student activism and protests as reasons for lowering the voting age to 18 in the 1970s during the Vietnam War: “We must channel these energies into our political system and give young people the real opportunity to influence our society in a peaceful and constructive manner.”
Students today live under threats to their futures such as school shootings and climate change, and they deserve to have influence over their elected officials beyond the protests they’ve organized. Sofie Whitney, a survivor of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, says, “If 16-year-old students are old enough to be affected by the laws, and realize that there is a problem, then they should have the power to help change it.”
The age of 16 is when people’s relationship with the law changes as they often start driving, working, and paying taxes. Further, in most states, 16-year-olds can be emancipated from their parents and live independently.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
From the 1990s to the present, elected officials in several US states have made unsuccessful attempts to lower the voting age to 16, and sometimes even younger. [1] Student activism in the wake of the Feb. 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, brought new life to the debate about letting younger people vote in elections. [2]
Internationally, about a dozen countries allow citizens to vote at age 16, sometimes with conditions such as being employed or married, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. [48]
A constitutional amendment to lower the US voting age to 16 would require approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states). [3] Alternatively, state legislatures could pass laws allowing younger people to vote in their states. [4]
Until the 1970s, the voting age in America was 21. [43] A debate over lowering it to 18 began during World War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreased the military draft age to 18. [44] President Eisenhower called for citizens ages 18 to 21 to be included in the political process in his 1954 State of the Union address. [44] But lawmakers didn’t take action until marches and demonstrations drew attention to the fact that young people who were being drafted to fight in Vietnam did not have the ability to vote in most states. [43]
Congress proposed the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1971, which stated, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” [45] The ratification process, which required approval from 38 states, was completed in about three months, the shortest amount of time of any amendment in US history. [46]
|
# Should Vaccines Be Required for Children?'
**Argument**
Most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary.
The chickenpox is often just a rash with blisters and can be treated with acetaminophen, cool compresses, and calamine lotion. The measles is normally a rash accompanied by a fever and runny nose and can be treated with rest and fluids. Rubella is often just a virus with a rash and low fever and can be treated with acetaminophen. Rotavirus can normally be treated with hydration and probiotics.
**Background**
Vaccines have been in the news over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date no state has yet added the COVID-19 vaccine to their required vaccinations roster. On Sep. 9, 2021, Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the country, mandated the COVID-19 vaccine for students ages 12 and up by Jan. 10, 2022 (pushed back to fall 2022 in Dec. 2021), the first in the country to mandate the coronavirus vaccine. On Oct. 1, 2021, Governor Newsom stated the COVID-19 vaccine would be mandated for all schoolchildren once approved by the FDA.
However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends getting 29 doses of 9 other vaccines (plus a yearly flu shot after six months old) for kids aged 0 to six. No US federal laws mandate vaccination, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Most states offer medical and religious exemptions; and some states allow philosophical exemptions.
Proponents say that vaccination is safe and one of the greatest health developments of the 20th century. They point out that illnesses, including rubella, diphtheria, smallpox, polio, and whooping cough, are now prevented by vaccination and millions of children’s lives are saved. They contend adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Taxes collected from the legal sale of marijuana support important public programs.
Tax revenues in legal marijuana states provide funding to the police, drug treatment and mental health centers, and housing programs, along with school programs such as anti-bullying campaigns, youth mentoring, and public school grants. “The impact is really felt at the local level. Some counties have done 20 years of infrastructure work in just one year’s time. They’ve provided lunch for kids who need it,” said Brian Vicente, partner at Vicente Sederberg LLC, a law firm specializing in the marijuana industry.
In Colorado, $40 million of marijuana tax revenue went to public school construction, while $105 million went to housing programs, mental health programs in jails, and health programs in middle schools in 2016-2017.
**Background**
More than half of US adults, over 128 million people, have tried marijuana, despite it being an illegal drug under federal law. Nearly 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession annually – more than one person per minute. Public support for legalizing marijuana went from 12% in 1969 to 66% today. Recreational marijuana, also known as adult-use marijuana, was first legalized in Colorado and Washington in 2012.
Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will add billions to the economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, free up scarce police resources, and stop the huge racial disparities in marijuana enforcement. They contend that regulating marijuana will lower street crime, take business away from the drug cartels, and make marijuana use safer through required testing, labeling, and child-proof packaging. They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and that adults should have a right to use it if they wish.
Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say it will increase teen use and lead to more medical emergencies including traffic deaths from driving while high. They contend that revenue from legalization falls far short of the costs in increased hospital visits, addiction treatment, environmental damage, crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. They say that marijuana use harms the user physically and mentally, and that its use should be strongly discouraged, not legalized. Read more background…
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.