text
stringlengths 558
17k
|
|---|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Student loan debt has disproportionately hurt black students. Forgiveness could help rectify racial inequity.
Black college students borrow more than their white counterparts due to family income, generational wealth, parental education, and the types of colleges attended.
According to Judith Scott-Clayton, Senior Research Scholar with the Community College Research Center at Columbia University, interest rates and graduate school loans leave black graduates with twice as much debt as white graduates, almost $53,000 four years after graduation. Scott-Clayton also noted black graduates default on student loans at a rate of 21% while white graduates default at 4%. The disparity, she explains, is the result of most black students who default having attended predatory for-profit colleges that have overall higher default rates for all students.
Ashley Harrington, Federal Advocacy Director and Senior Counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, explained the catch-22 in which students of color often find themselves: “The student debt crisis is absolutely a racial justice issue. For brown and Black folks, they often need to get more education to get the same salaries and positions that white folks can get with less education and that means how do they do that? They have to take on more debt… [The debt is then] preventing wealth building, This is something that is impacting not just individuals, it’s impacting their families, their communities.”
An Aug. 2020 Roosevelt Institute study concluded, “[W]hile individual white borrowers at the median stand to gain the most in absolute dollars from student debt cancellation, the relative gains for Black borrowers are much larger and the greater proportion of Black borrowers means that Black wealth overall would experience more growth as a result. Given the many advantages wealth confers in the contemporary U.S. context, the substantial increase in Black net worth is a very significant positive contribution of student debt cancellation, one with potentially transformative positive impacts for Black families overall.” The help provided by student loan debt forgiveness exceeds simple dollar amounts.
**Background**
Student loan debt is frequently in the news as politicians debate solutions to the rising costs of college that lead to sometimes crippling amounts of debt. For those with outstanding student loans, such debt can be discharged in two ways: forgiveness and bankruptcy.
Americans owed a collective $1.71 trillion in student loan debt as of Dec. 2020, according to the Federal Reserve. By comparison, in Dec. 2010, Americans owed about $845 billion in student loan debt, which means student loan debt has increased by about 102% over the last ten years. [1] [2]
According to the US Department of Education, 42.9 million Americans held outstanding student loan debt at the end of 2020, or about 17% of the US adult population. 75% of students with school-loan debt went to 2- or 4-year colleges, and the remaining 25% also borrowed for graduate school. About 6% of people with school loan debt owe more than $100,000–this group accounts for about a third of all outstanding student loan debt and usually encompasses both college as well as graduate school expenses. Approximately 40% leave college with between $20,000 and $100,000 in outstanding student loans. About 25% leave college with less than $20,000 in debt, and 30% leave with no student loan debt. [3] [4]
The New York Federal Reserve reported that about 11% of student loan debt payments were either late or in default (270 or more days late) at the beginning of 2020. By all indications, this debt, and the late payments and defaults as well, will continue to rise as college costs outpace average incomes. [5] [6] [7]
By Nov. 2021, the Education Data Initiative estimated 43.2 million student borrowers owed an average of $39,351 each. [40]
Some have proposed that the US federal government forgive some or all existing student loan debt in order to relieve the financial pressure on individuals and the country. Student debt forgiveness proposals range from a discharge of $10,000 per borrower (which would forgive the entire debt bills held by about 15 million borrowers) to $50,000 per borrower (which would forgive the entire debt bills held by about 36 million borrowers) to plans that would forgive all outstanding student loan debt. Each plan would include forgiveness for those with late or in-default accounts, as well as partial debt forgiveness for many more borrowers. [8]
The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimated that, depending on details, over ten years college debt cancellation will cost between $300 billion for a one-time cancellation of $10,000 for borrowers earning under $125,000 per year and $980 billion for a one-time cancellation of $50,000 per borrower. [43]
Others have proposed making student loan debt easier to discharge through bankruptcy. Credit card debt, medical bills, auto loans, and even gambling debt can be canceled by declaring bankruptcy, but due to a 1976 federal law, discharging student loan debt is much more difficult. Private student loans have also been protected from discharge in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. According to the US Department of Education, people who declare Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy can have student loan debt canceled but only if a court finds there is evidence of “undue hardship.” Getting student loans discharged is so difficult and rare, however, that many lawyers advise clients not to try: less than 0.5% of students clear their debts through bankruptcy. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
In Mar. 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump paused federal student loan payments, interest accrual, and debt collection. Congress voted to keep the pause through Sep. 30, 2021, and Trump extended it again through January 2021. President Biden maintained the pause with several renewals after taking office. His latest freeze, announced on Apr. 6, 2022, will expire on Aug. 31, 2022. While some disagree with the continuation of payment, interest and collection pauses, others question why federal student loan debt can’t be canceled if the federal government can do without payments for almost three years. [41]
On Aug. 24, 2022, President Biden announced a short loan freeze through Dec. 31, 2022 as well as a cancellation of “up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, and up to $10,000 for other qualifying borrowers.” The White House stated about 43 million borrowers would qualify the cancellation, with 20 million borrowers qualifying to have their debt completely canceled. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimated that the debt cancellation portion of Biden’s Aug. 2022 plan will cost up to $519 billion, with other components, such as income-based repayment plans adding additional costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the plan will cost $400 billion over 30 years. [42] [44] [47]
|
# Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?'
**Argument**
Drone strikes are legal under American and international law.
Presidential powers under Article II of the US Constitution allow the use of force against an imminent threat without congressional approval. Additionally, in 2001 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), authorizing armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces indefinitely. The AUMF states that the President is “authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” The AUMF does not have a geographic boundary, and the Obama administration notes that al Qaeda militants far from the battlefield in Afghanistan are still engaged in armed conflict with the United States and therefore covered under the law.
Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation’s inherent right to self-defense when it has been attacked. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has said that Article 51 applies if the targeted state agrees to the use of force in its territory, or the targeted group operating within its territory was responsible for an act of aggression against the targeting state where the host state is unwilling or unable to control the threat themselves. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have officially consented to US drone strikes within their countries because they are unable to control terrorist groups within their own borders.
Harold Hongju Koh, JD, Professor of International Law at Yale University and former US State Department Legal Adviser explained, “a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.,” and a country may target individuals in foreign countries if they are directly participating in hostilities or posing an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent.
The United States also has the right under international law to “anticipatory self-defense,” which gives the right to use force against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defense is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.”
**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.
|
# Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?'
**Argument**
The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.
The FBI found that in 2013 arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total). A June 1985 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “the weapons used [in altercations]… were those closest at hand.” An editorial published in the June 1985 American Journal of Public Health noted, “gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns.” A 1993 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that “[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”
**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 All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care?'
**Argument**
Providing a right to health care could benefit private businesses.
If the United States implemented a universal right to health care, businesses would no longer have to pay for employee health insurance policies. As of 2017, 56% of Americans were receiving health insurance through their employer. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, some economists believe the high costs of employee health insurance place US companies at a “competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace.” According to the Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare, a right to healthcare under a single-payer-system could reduce employer labor costs by 10-12%.
**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 Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Many students do not have sufficient home internet bandwidth to use tablets.
Students “need home broadband to access digital content and to complete Internet based homework,” according to former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, but about five million, predominantly low-income, families, do not have broadband internet at home.
**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…
|
# Homework Pros and Cons - Should Homework Be Banned?'
**Argument**
Homework does not help younger students, and may not help high school students.
We’ve known for a while that homework does not help elementary students. A 2006 study found that “homework had no association with achievement gains” when measured by results or grades.
Fourth grade students who did no homework got roughly the same score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math exam as those who did 30 minutes of homework a night. Students who did 45 minutes or more of homework a night actually did worse.
Temple University professor Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek said that homework is not the most effective tool for young learners to apply new information: “They’re learning way more important skills when they’re not doing their homework.”
In fact, homework may not be helpful at the high school level either. Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth, stated, “I interviewed high school teachers who completely stopped giving homework and there was no downside, it was all upside.” He explains, “just because the same kids who get more homework do a little better on tests, doesn’t mean the homework made that happen.”
**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]
|
# Immigrant Sanctuary Cities - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Sanctuary policies defy federal laws to which state and local governments are bound.
8 U.S. Code § 1373 states that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
The Department of Justice requires that most recipients of federal grant money certify their compliance with all federal laws. Sanctuary cities, by not asking about, recording, and submitting to the federal government the immigration statuses of residents, are violating federal law and the rules for getting federal grant money.
**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**
Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness.
Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another’s feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. [
A study published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin found that exposure to violent video games led to a lack of empathy and prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others). [ [
Eight independent tests measuring the impact of violent video games on prosocial behavior found a significant negative effect, leading to the conclusion that “exposure to violent video games is negatively correlated with helping in the real world.” [
Several studies have found that children with high exposure to violent media display lower moral reasoning skills than their peers without that exposure. [ [
A meta-analysis of 130 international studies with over 130,000 participants concluded that violent video games “increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and aggressive behaviors, and decrease empathic feelings and prosocial behaviors.” [
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalizing marijuana increases use by teens, with harmful results.
The percentage of 12- to 17-year-olds using marijuana is higher in every legal marijuana state than the national average. For example, 16.21% of Colorado teens and 18.86% of teens in Alaska reported marijuana use in the past year, compared to an average of 12.29% for the United States overall in 2015-2016. Colorado past-month teen marijuana use jumped 20% in the two-year average after marijuana was legalized for adults.
Marijuana is especially dangerous for young people, because human brains are not fully developed until around age 25 (four years past the legal age in states that allow recreational marijuana). The American Academy of Pediatrics said that adverse effects of teen marijuana use include “impaired short-term memory and decreased concentration, attention span, and problem solving, which clearly interfere with learning. Alterations in motor control, coordination, judgment, reaction time, and tracking ability have also been documented; these may contribute to unintentional deaths and injuries.” Studies show that students who use cannabis perform worse in school.
**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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Other:
Clinton failed to deal with the threat of Osama bin Laden, whose terrorist acts escalated and culminated in the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks that killed 2,973 people. Clinton was too distracted by scandals such as the threat of impeachment to take action against Al Qaeda. A former CIA station chief in Pakistan said Clinton ordered the CIA to capture bin Laden alive, which resulted in a missed opportunity to kill him at an al-Qaida training camp in 2000.
**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 the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford everyday essentials.
According to a 2013 poll by Oxfam America, 66% of US workers earning less than $10 an hour report that they “just meet” or “don’t even have enough to meet” their basic living expenses, and 50% say that they are frequently worried about affording basic necessities such as food. A 2015 report by the Alliance for a Just Society, found that “the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour represents less than half of a living wage for a single adult” and a worker supporting only himself would have to work 93 hours a week at the federal minimum wage in order to make ends meet “or skip necessities like meals or medicine.”
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to “show their worth, or their ineptitude.”
A study by the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance.
**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…
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
School vouchers funnel money away from already-struggling public schools and children and redistribute tax dollars to private schools and middle-class children.
Superintendent of Fort Wayne, Indiana Schools, Wendy Robinson, Ed.D, calls school vouchers “an assault on public education.”
In Indiana the voucher program now costs the state approximately $50 million more in state money going to education costs than originally budgeted. One third of Indiana voucher students were not considered low-income, and, increasingly, the voucher students are from suburban, middle class families who already have access to good public schools. Only 1% of Indiana voucher students were leaving failing schools.
Families who have the means to send their children to private schools should be responsible for the resulting bills instead of taking money from public school kids.
**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]
|
# Do Standardized Tests Improve Education in America?'
**Argument**
Standardized tests offer an objective measurement of education and a good metric to gauge areas for improvement.
Teachers’ grading practices are naturally uneven and subjective. An A in one class may be a C in another. Teachers also have conscious and unconscious biases for a favorite student or against a rowdy student, for example. Standardized tests offer students across the country a unified measure of their knowledge.
Aaron Churchill, Ohio Research Director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, stated, “At their core, standardized exams are designed to be objective measures. They assess students based on a similar set of questions, are given under nearly identical testing conditions, and are graded by a machine or blind reviewer. They are intended to provide an accurate, unfiltered measure of what a student knows.”
Frequently states or local jurisdictions employ psychometricians to ensure tests are fair across populations of students. Mark Moulon, PhD, Chief Executive Officer at Pythias Consulting and psychometrician, offered an example: “If you find that your question on skateboarding is one that boys find to be an easy question, but girls find to be a hard question, that’ll pop up as a statistic. Differential item functioning will flag that question as problematic.”
Moulon continued, explaining, “What’s cool about psychometrics is that it will flag stuff that a human would never be able to notice. I remember a science test that had been developed in California and it asked about earthquakes. But the question was later used in a test that was administered in New England. When you try to analyze the New England kids with the California kids, you would get a differential item functioning flag because the California kids were all over the subject of earthquakes, and the kids in Vermont had no idea about earthquakes.”
With problematic questions removed, or adapted for different populations of students, standardized tests offer the best objective measure of what students have learned. Taking that information, schools can determine areas for improvement. As Bryan Nixon, former Head of School at private school Whitby, noted, “When we receive standardized test data at Whitby, we use it to evaluate the effectiveness of our education program. We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance, but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum. When we look at Whitby’s assessment data, we can compare our students to their peers at other schools to determine what we’re doing well within our educational continuum and where we need to invest more time and resources.”
**Background**
Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states. US students slipped from being ranked 18th in the world in math in 2000 to 40th in 2015, and from 14th to 25th in science and from 15th to 24th in reading. Failures in the education system have been blamed on rising poverty levels, teacher quality, tenure policies, and, increasingly, on the pervasive use of standardized tests.
Proponents argue that standardized tests offer an objective measurement of education and a good metric to gauge areas for improvement, as well as offer meaningful data to help students in marginalized groups, and that the scores are good indicators of college and job success. They argue standardized tests are useful metrics for teacher evaluations.
Opponents argue that standardized tests only determine which students are good at taking tests, offer no meaningful measure of progress, and have not improved student performance, and that the tests are racist, classist, and sexist, with scores that are not predictors of future success. They argue standardized tests are useful metrics for teacher evaluations.
Read more background…
|
# Electoral College Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
The Electoral College ensures that that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States.
If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win the election, presidential candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore they build campaign platforms with a national focus, meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country.
Without the electoral college, groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized.
Tina Mulally, South Dakota Representative, stated that the Electoral College protects small state and minority interests and that a national popular vote would be ““like two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.” Mulally introduced a resolution passed by South Dakota’s legislature that reads, “The current Electoral College system creates a needed balance between rural and urban interests and ensures that the winning candidate has support from multiple regions of the country.”
**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**
Colleges may be indoctrinating students instead of educating them.
According to William Hare, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Mount Saint Vincent University, “teachers may abuse their power and authority and seek to impose certain beliefs and values, actively discouraging their students from raising problems or objections.” A 2010-2011 UCLA survey of full-time faculty at 4-year colleges found 50.3% identified as “liberal” compared to 11.5% who identified as “conservative.” David Horowitz, MA, conservative activist and author, asserts that university “curriculum has been expanded to include agendas about ‘social change’ that are overtly political.”
**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…
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Obesity decreases a person’s life expectancy and can cause death, like other diseases.
Obesity in adults can lead to three years’ loss of life. Extreme obesity can shorten a person’s life span by 10 years. A July 13, 2016 Lancet meta-study found that even moderate obesity led to an increased chance of early death: 29.5% for men (compared to 19% for men of normal BMI weight) and 14.6% for women (compared to 11%). The authors calculated that one in five premature deaths in North America could be avoided if obese people were normal BMI weights. The Surgeon General reports an estimated 300,000 deaths per year may be attributed to obesity. People who are obese have a 50-100% increased risk of death from all causes.
**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…
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
Global warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is causing the Arctic ice cap to melt at an increasing rate.
From 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. By 2019, Arctic sea ice was being lost at a rate of 12.9% per decade. As the Arctic ice cover continues to decrease, the amount of the sun’s heat reflected by the ice back into space also decreases. This positive-feedback loop amplifies global warming at a rate even faster than previous climate models had predicted. Some studies predicted the Arctic could become nearly ice free sometime between 2020-2060.
**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 US Government Regulate Prescription Drug Prices?'
**Argument**
High drug costs can force people to choose between life-saving drugs and other essentials.
24% of people taking prescription drugs reported difficulty affording the drugs, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll. 58% of people whose drugs cost more than $100 a month, 49% of people in fair or poor health, 35% of those with annual incomes of less than $40,000, and 35% of those taking four or more drugs monthly all reported affordability issues. Additionally, 30% of people aged 50 to 64 reported cost issues because they generally take more drugs than younger people but are not old enough to qualify for Medicare drug benefits.
Tori Marsh, Director of Research at GoodRx, explained some of the consequences of having to buy expensive prescription drugs: “In 2020, 20.7% of people reported taking on debt or declaring bankruptcy due to the cost of their prescription medications. Borrowing from friends or family was the most common financial action (16.8%), followed by getting loans (5.0%), taking out another mortgage (1.2%), and filing for bankruptcy (1.0%).”
Because of high drug costs, 29% of adults surveyed in the KFF poll said they did not take their medication(s) as prescribed, 19% did not fill a prescription, 18% took an over-the-counter (OTC) drug instead, and 12% cut pills in half or skipped doses. Similar results were found among respondents to a Healio Internal Medicine poll.
As explained by Truth in Rx, an American Medical Association campaign for drug price transparency, “[p]rescription drug price increases can lead some patients to not be able to afford critical medicine…. The result? Among this group, three in ten say their condition got worse.”
**Background**
With 79% of Americans saying prescription drug costs are “unreasonable,” and 70% reporting lowering prescription drug costs as their highest healthcare priority, the popular prescription drug debate is not whether drug costs should be reduce but how to reduce prescription drug costs. One consideration is whether the United States federal government should regulate prescription drug prices. [1]
A prescription drug is a medication that may only be obtained with a medical professional’s recommendation and authorization. In some US states, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, and other medical professionals are permitted to write prescriptions in addition to doctors. Prescription drugs are generally divided into two categories: brand-name drugs and generic drugs. [2] [3]
In the United States, drug companies (also called pharmaceutical companies) set prescription drug prices, which are largely unregulated by the US federal government. Some drug companies will be familiar due to their names being attached to COVID-19 vaccines or other common products: Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, for example. Others may not be household names but command large portions of the market nonetheless: Swiss companies Roche and Novartis, to name two. [4] Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Criminals use social media to commit and promote crimes.
Gangs use the sites to recruit younger members, coordinate violent crimes, and threaten other gangs. Sex offenders use social media sites to find victims for sexual exploitation. 78% of burglars “admitted they use Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Google Street View to select victims’ properties,” and 54% said that “posting status and whereabouts on social media is the most common mistake made by homeowners.” Social media has also led to the phenomena of “performance crimes,” so called as participants film their crimes and upload them to social media.
**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…
|
# DACA & the DREAM Act - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Amnesty should not be given to law breakers.
A country fairly enforcing its own laws is not cruel.David Benkoff, Senior Policy Analyst at The Daily Caller noted that Dreamers are “victims of their parents… [and] it’s stunningly callous and cruel that they would knowingly subject their own children to such risks.”
Dreamers have already broken the law by crossing the border illegally and remaining in the country without documentation. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) stated that many Dreamers also commit work-related crimes such as Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury on I-9 employment forms, and falsification of ID cards. Since 2012, 1,500 Dreamers have lost their DACA status because of gang involvement or other criminal activity.
Dreamers are only disqualified if they are convicted of a crime, which according to CIS author Ronald W. Mortensen, means “Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven’t paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven’t been convicted of their crimes.”
**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.
|
# DACA & the DREAM Act - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
DACA and the Dream Act only encourage more illegal immigration.
Former congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that DACA “encouraged more illegal immigration and contributed to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.”
According to Karl Eschbach, Adjunct Professor at The University of Texas Medical Branch, DACA will increase the undocumented population because those who don’t qualify for DACA will stay in the hopes of qualifying eventually, and more people will immigrate assuming coverage by DACA or a similar program.
Lamar Smith (R-TX), former congressman, stated, “The Dream Act will only encourage more illegal immigration. One only needs to look at history to see how amnesty has played out in the past. The 1986 amnesty legislation legalized about three million illegal immigrants. But rather than put an end to illegal immigration, the amnesty only encouraged more.”
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) included the legalization of about three million undocumented immigrants. Following the act’s implementation, between 1990 and 2007, the population of unauthorized immigrants in the United States shot up to 500,000 per year, peaking at 12.2 million.
**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.
|
# Is Obesity a Disease?'
**Argument**
Obesity is a side effect, not a disease.
Obesity can be caused by hypothyroidism, Cushing’s syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, polycystic ovary syndrome, arthritis, increased insulin levels (from carbohydrate-heavy diets or diabetes treatments) and depression. Certain drugs like antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, diabetes medications, anti-psychotic medications, antihistamines, anticonvulsants, steroids, beta blockers, and contraceptives can cause obesity. Obesity can also be caused by lack of sleep (or sleep debt), ingesting endocrine disrupters (such as BPA, DDT, and phthalates), consuming high-fructose corn syrup, a lack of temperature variation (due to air conditioners and heaters), and quitting smoking.
**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 Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?'
**Argument**
School uniforms promote conformity over individuality.
Chicago junior high school student Kyler Sumter wrote in the Huffington Post: “They decide to teach us about people like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony and Booker T. Washington… We learn about how these people expressed themselves and conquered and we can’t even express ourselves in the hallways.” Troy Shuman, a senior in Harford County, MD, said the introduction of a mandatory uniform policy to his school would be “teaching conformity and squelching individual thought. Just think of prisons and gangs. The ultimate socializer to crush rebellion is conformity in appearance. If a school system starts at clothes, where does it end?”
In schools where uniforms are specifically gendered (girls must wear skirts and boys must wear pants), transgendered, gender-fluid, and gender-nonconforming students can feel ostracized. Seamus, a 16-year-old transgendered boy, stated, “sitting in a blouse and skirt all day made me feel insanely anxious. I wasn’t taken seriously. This is atrocious and damaging to a young person’s mental health; that uniform nearly destroyed me.” Late satirist George Carlin asked, “Don’t these schools do enough damage, making all these children think alike? Now they’re gonna get them to look alike, too?”
**Background**
Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. According to a 2020 report, the percentage of public schools that required school uniforms jumped from 12% in the 1999-2000 school year to 20% in the 2017-18 school year. School uniforms were most frequently required by elementary schools (23%), followed by middle (18%), and high schools (10%).
Proponents say that school uniforms make schools safer for students, create a “level playing field” that reduces socioeconomic disparities, and encourage children to focus on their studies rather than their clothes.
Opponents say school uniforms infringe upon students’ right to express their individuality, have no positive effect on behavior and academic achievement, and emphasize the socioeconomic disparities they are intended to disguise. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media helps people who are socially isolated or shy connect with other people.
More than 25% of teens report that social media makes them feel less shy, 28% report feeling more outgoing, and 20% report feeling more confident (53% of teens identified as somewhat shy or “a lot” shy in general). Youth who are “less socially adept” report that social media gives them a place to make friends and typically quiet students can feel more comfortable being vocal through a social media platform used in class. Shy adults also cite social media as a comfortable place to interact with others.
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalized marijuana creates steep costs for society and taxpayers that far outweigh its tax revenues.
Marijuana use harms more than just the person using the drug. Societal costs of marijuana use include paying for increased emergency room visits, medical care, and addiction treatment for the uninsured; more victims of drugged driving accidents; increased crime; and a negative impact on health from secondhand smoke.
Annual societal costs from alcohol ($223.5 billion) and tobacco ($193 billion) far exceed the $24 billion in tax revenues they raise. Money raised from legal marijuana taxes generally accounts for less than 1% of a state’s tax revenue.
Legalizing marijuana would put one more harmful substance in our society that costs more than the revenue it generates. According to the Pew Research Center, “the most frequently mentioned reason why people oppose legalization is that marijuana generally hurts society.”
**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…
|
# DC & Puerto Rico Statehood - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Puerto Rico residents are American citizens who are treated like second-class citizens.
While some say that DC residents are treated like “second-class citizens,” frequently Puerto Ricans are treated like foreigners. Only 54% of Americans polled in 2017 knew Puerto Ricans are US citizens. 22% said Puerto Ricans were not citizens and 24% did not know.
Puerto Ricans were granted citizenship in Mar. 1917 when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act. However, the 3.1 million residents of the island are often subject to discrimination that stateside citizens are not. As recently as 2017, to obtain a license Puerto Ricans were asked difficult questions including, “What is the name of the frog [the “coqui”] native only to Puerto Rico?” Additionally, the US Supreme Court ruled on Apr. 21, 2022 that Puerto Ricans do not have a constitutional right to some federal benefits, including Supplemental Security Income. The ruling could be applied by Congress to other benefits such as Medicare and Social Security, even though Puerto Ricans pay federal taxes.
Like DC, Puerto Rico is also subject to the whims of Congress. As Charles Venator-Santiago, PhD, Political Science Professor at the University of Connecticut, summarized, “Congress has this wide berth to do what it wants to help the island. They’ve chosen to discriminate downward, historically.”
**Background**
The debate to grant Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico statehood pops up periodically in the news or US Congress. Versions of these debates have been popular since the early 1800s for DC, and since the 1950s for Puerto Rico, though debate over the latter’s autonomy or independence even occurred when the island was under Spanish colonial rule.
The United States has not granted statehood to a jurisdiction since 1959 when Alaska was admitted on Jan. 3 and Hawaii on Aug. 21. [1] [2]
The Admissions Clause (Article IV, Section 3) of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to create a new state: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” [3]
According to the National Constitution Center, the basic process most used for a state to join the Union, and the foundational process used every time since West Virginia joined in 1863, has been for Congress to first make the jurisdiction a US territory, asking for a local constitution that conforms to the US Constitution. Then Congress grants statehood, often requiring the president’s final approval. For many states, Congress has made those steps “a more complicated process,” and required the passage of additional acts or resolutions. [2] [4]
37 states have been added to the United States via Congress and the Admissions Clause after the ratification of the US Constitution, beginning with Vermont in 1791 and ending with Hawaii in 1959. According to Matt Glassman, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, “nineteen were the admission of an entire territory, already bounded and recognized as a political community. Ten were the partial admission of a territory. Some territories became a state, and the residual portion of the territory was reorganized as a new community. One state (California) was created out of unorganized federal land. One state was formed from a bounded nation (Texas). And four states (Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia) were created from land legally held by existing states.“ [4] [5]
For more on the history of the individual DC and Puerto Rico statehood debates, click here.
|
# Should the Penny Stay in Circulation? - Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Eliminating pennies would save time at the point of purchase without hurting customers or businesses financially.
The use of pennies in paying for goods and making change adds time to sales transactions. A study by Walgreen’s and the National Association of Convenience Stores found that pennies add 2 to 2.5 seconds to each cash transaction.
As a result of that extra time per transaction, the average citizen wastes 730 seconds a year (12 minutes) paying with pennies. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw says that this wasted time costs the US economy around $1 billion annually. An estimate from Citizens to Retire the penny says that the 107 billion cash transactions in the United States annually add up to 120 million hours of time between customers and employees – at a cost of $2 billion to the US economy.
Rounding transactions to the nearest nickel instead of using pennies wouldn’t harm consumers or stores. Robert M. Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, crunched the numbers and found that “The convenience stores and the customers basically broke even.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The US Mint shipped 8.4 billion pennies for circulation in 2017, more than all nickels (1.3 billion), dimes (2.4 billion), and quarters (1.9 billion) combined. [1] While countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have phased out their one-cent pieces, Harris Poll found that 55% of Americans are in favor of keeping the penny and 29% want to abolish it. [2][3]
The US Mint produces coins as instructed by Congress, so a law would have to be passed by Congress and signed by the President in order for pennies to be removed from circulation. [4] Several unsuccessful legislative efforts have sought to bring about the penny’s extinction. Most recently, in 2017, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) sponsored ultimately failed legislation that would have suspended minting of the penny. [5]
Should the Penny Stay in Circulation?
Pro 1
Preserving the penny keeps consumer prices down and avoids harming low-income households.
Mark Weller, Executive Director of the pro-penny group Americans for Common Cents, says, “The alternative to the penny is rounding to the nickel, and that’s something that will negatively impact working families every time they buy a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk.” [6]
The US Federal Reserve found that minorities and low-income people are more likely to use cash than credit cards. [7] Raymond Lombra, Professor of Economics at Pennsylvania State University, says the extra rounding charges would exceed $600 million annually and would “be regressive, affecting the poor and other disadvantaged people groups disproportionately.” [9]
One study found that penny rounding in Canada costs grocery store customers an estimated 3.27 million Canadian dollars (2.5 million USD) annually. [9]
Read More
Pro 2
A penny can be used for decades and is more cost-efficient to produce than a nickel.
Most US coins have an expected circulation life of 20 to 30 years, meaning a single penny could be used thousands or even millions of times. [10][11] So what if it costs 1.8 cents to make? [1] That’s a bargain for how many times it gets used.
Without pennies, the Mint would be forced to make more five-cent pieces. That would cost an estimated $10.9 million more annually than it would cost to keep making pennies. [12]
Pennies and nickels both cost more to make than their face values, but on average over the last five years, nickels have been made at a loss of 2.58 cents per coin, compared to .65 cents per penny. [1][13] The cost of making and shipping pennies includes some fixed costs that the US Mint would continue to incur even if we abolished the penny, because the Mint would still make other coins. [12]
Read More
Pro 3
The existence of pennies helps raise a lot of money for charities.
Organizations such as the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Salvation Army, and the Ronald McDonald House ask people to donate pennies to raise funds. [11] In 2009, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society announced that school children had collected over 15 billion pennies in support of its charitable work — that’s $150 million dollars for blood cancer research and treatment. [14]
Dagmar Serota, who created a nonprofit called Good Cents for Oakland, said, “Pennies are easy to ask for and they are easy to give. And it’s very easy for a child to say, ‘Will you help me support this nonprofit, will you give me your pennies?’” [6] Elementary school students in Los Angeles, CA, gain significant leadership and civic engagement experience from USC’s Penny Harvest program by choosing how to donate the money they raise. [15]
Common Cents, a nonprofit based in Dallas, TX, has run a “Pennies from the Heart” program for 20 years, and the student-led efforts have raised over $850,000 for local charities. [16] The Ms. Cheap Penny Drive for Second Harvest in Tennessee raised enough to pay for 316,039 meals for the hungry in 2017. [17]
Read More
Con 1
The penny has practically no value and should be taken out of circulation just as other coins have been in US history.
You can’t buy anything for a penny; vending machines and parking meters won’t accept them. [18] Harvard economist Greg Mankiw stated, “The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange. The penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.” [19] Former US Mint Director Philip Diehl said, “[T]he value of a penny has shrunk to the point that, if you earn more than the minimum wage, you’re losing money stopping and picking up a penny on the sidewalk.” [20]
Comedian John Oliver noted, “Two percent of Americans admitted to regularly throwing pennies in the garbage, which means the US Mint is spending millions to make garbage.” [21] Two-thirds of the billions of pennies produced are never seen in circulation again once they reach a consumer via the bank. [22]
Read More
Con 2
The process of making pennies is costly both financially and environmentally.
At a total per unit cost of 1.82 cents, it costs nearly two pennies to make one penny. [1] Aaron Klein, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department, estimates that the United States could see $1.78 billion in losses over the next 30 years if the penny remains in production. [23]
Making pennies also has environmental consequences from mining and transportation. Mining zinc and copper produces carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants, and uses vast amounts of energy. [24]
Over the last 35 years, 107 million pounds of carbon dioxide have been emitted due to pennies being delivered from the Mint to banks. [25] A California company called Mike’s Bikes has banned the penny from its registers because “Making pennies wastes natural resources [and] is toxic to people and the environment.” [26]
Read More
Con 3
Eliminating pennies would save time at the point of purchase without hurting customers or businesses financially.
The use of pennies in paying for goods and making change adds time to sales transactions. A study by Walgreen’s and the National Association of Convenience Stores found that pennies add 2 to 2.5 seconds to each cash transaction. [27]
As a result of that extra time per transaction, the average citizen wastes 730 seconds a year (12 minutes) paying with pennies. [28] Harvard economist Greg Mankiw says that this wasted time costs the US economy around $1 billion annually. [29] An estimate from Citizens to Retire the penny says that the 107 billion cash transactions in the United States annually add up to 120 million hours of time between customers and employees – at a cost of $2 billion to the US economy. [27]
Rounding transactions to the nearest nickel instead of using pennies wouldn’t harm consumers or stores. Robert M. Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, crunched the numbers and found that “The convenience stores and the customers basically broke even.” [30]
Read More
Did You Know?
1. In 1792, Congress created a national mint authorized to make gold, silver, and copper coins, including the one-cent piece known as the penny. Abraham Lincoln’s face replaced an image of Lady Liberty on the penny in 1909, the 100th anniversary of his birth, making him the first real person featured on a regular-issue American coin. [31][32][33]
2. The first penny, known as the “Fugio cent,” was reportedly designed by Benjamin Franklin in 1787. Franklin is also credited with the saying, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” [35]
3. The official name for the US penny is “one-cent piece,” according to the US Department of the Treasury, but early Americans were allegedly in the habit of using the British term “penny.” [4][35]
4. Although originally made of pure copper, pennies today are composed of 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper. [34]
5. The Department of Defense banned the use of pennies at overseas military bases in 1980 because the coins were deemed too heavy and not cost effective to ship. [36]
6. The difference between the face value of a coin and and the actual cost to make it is known as seigniorage. [37]
7. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to favor dropping the penny (39% vs. 20%). [3]
For more on US currency, explore “Currency and the US Presidents.”
Click for an Encyclopaedia Britannica video about how coins became a form of money.
Discussion Questions
1. Should the penny stay in circulation? Why or why not?
2. Should the US government consider removing other coins from circulation as transactions become more digital? Why or why not?
3. How would removing pennies impact people who primarily rely on cash transactions? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Analyze the pro argument of Mark Weller from Americans for Common Cents.
2. Explore the penny at the US Mint.
3. Consider the con arguments from NPR’s Planet Money reporter Greg Rosalsky.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.United States Mint, "United States Mint 2020 Annual Report," usmint.gov, 2021
2.Brian Milligan, "The Penny Coin: Should We Follow Ireland and Phase It Out?," bbc.com, May 8, 2016
3.The Harris Poll, "Penny for Your Thoughts? Americans Oppose Abolishing the Penny," theharrispoll.com, Sep. 22, 2015
4.US Department of the Treasury, "Resource Center: Denominations," treasury.gov, June 15, 2018
5.John McCain, "Senators John Mccain & Mike Enzi Reintroduce the Coins Act to Save Billions in Taxpayer Dollars," mccain.senate.gov, Mar. 29, 2017
6.Andrew Stelzer, "Phasing out Pennies in a Bid for Change," npr.org, Nov. 29, 2009
7.Shaun O'Brien, "Consumer Preferences and the Use of Cash: Evidence from the Diary of Consumer Payments Choice Working Paper," frbsf.org, June 2014
8.Raymond E. Lombra, "Eliminating the Penny from the U.S. Coinage System: An Economic Analysis," Eastern Economic Journal, Fall 2001
9.Vancouver School of Economics, "Penny Rounding Profitable for Canadian Grocers: UBC VSE Student Research," economics.ubc.ca, Nov. 16, 2017
10.Reuters, "Pennies: The Throwaway Coins We Can't Let Go Of," latimes.com, May 31, 1994
11.Amy Livingston, "Should We Get Rid of the Penny? – 8 Reasons to Keep It vs Eliminate It," moneycrashers.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
12.Rodney J. Bosco and Kevin M. Davis, "Impact of Eliminating the Penny on the United States Mint's Costs and Profit in Fiscal Year 2011," pennies.org, Apr. 12, 2012
13.United States Mint, "United States Mint 2015 Annual Report," usmint.gov, June 2016
14.Associated Press, "US Penny Campaign Benefits Blood Cancer Research," newsday.com, Feb. 10, 2009
15.University of Southern California, "The USC Penny Harvest Wrapped up Its Third Successful Year," communities.usc.edu (accessed July 2, 2018)
16.Common Cents, "Non-Profits," commoncentsdallas.org (accessed July 2, 2018)
17.Mary Hance, "Penny Drive Sets Record in Raising Money for Second Harvest," tennessean.com, Feb. 17, 2017
18.Vlogbrothers, "I HATE PENNIES!!!! (Also Nickels.)," YouTube.com, Sep. 6, 2010
19.Greg Mankiw, "Get Rid of the Penny!," gregmankiw.blogspot.com, Apr. 22, 2006
20.Philip N. Diehl, "The Real Diehl: It’s Time for the United States to Eliminate the One Cent Coin," coinweek.com, Jan. 28, 2015
21.Last Week Tonight, "Pennies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)," YouTube.com, Nov. 22, 2015
22.J. William Gadsby, "Future of the Penny: Options for Congressional Consideration," gao.gov, July 16, 1996
23.Aaron Klein, "Time for Change: Modernizing to the Dollar Coin Saves Taxpayers Billions," dollarcoinalliance.org, July 22, 2013
24.Michelle Z. Donahue, "How Much Does it Really Cost (the Planet) to Make a Penny?," smithsonianmag.com, May 18, 2016
25.Josh Bloom, "Want to Help the Environment? Get Rid of Stupid Pennies," acsh.org, June 17, 2016
26.Mike's Bikes, "Pennies Don't Make 'Cents,'" mikesbikes.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
27.Retire the Penny, "It Makes 'Cents,'" retirethepenny.org (accessed July 2, 2018)
28.Sebastian Mallaby, "The Penny Stops Here," washingtonpost.com, Sep. 25, 2006
29.Greg Mankiw, "How to Make $1 Billion," gregmankiw.blogspot.com, Sep. 25, 2006
30.Consumer Affairs, "The Penny's End Is Near," consumeraffairs.com, July 2006
31.Courtney Waite, "The Origination of the Lincoln Penny," livinglincoln.web.unc.edu, Apr. 16, 2015
32.United States Mint, "Fun Facts Related to the Penny," usmint.gov (accessed July 2, 2018)
33.APMEX, "The 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent – the King of Lincoln Cents," apmex.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
34.United States Mint, "History," usmint.gov, June 19, 2018
35.Jennie Cohen, "10 Things You Didn't Know about the Penny," history.com, Mar. 30, 2012
36.Army & Air Force Exchange Service, "Retail & General FAQs," aafes.com (accessed July 2, 2018)
37.David Kestenbaum, "What Is Seigniorage?," npr.org, Jan. 9, 2009
38.Business Wire, "Strong Support for the Penny in Recent Poll," businesswire.com, Apr. 25, 2019
39.Jenny Gross, "Will the Penny Survive Coronavirus? Some Hope Not," nytimes.com, July 29, 2020
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media enables “sexting,” which can lead to criminal charges and the unexpected proliferation of personal images.
Almost 40% of teens report “sexting” – posting or sending sexually suggestive messages – with 22% of teen girls and 18% of teen boys posting nude or semi-nude photos. As a result, teens and adults are being charged with possessing and distributing child pornography, even when the teen took and distributed a photo of him/herself. 88% of private self-produced sexual images posted to social media are stolen by pornography websites and disseminated to the public, often without the subject’s knowledge.
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Growing marijuana harms the environment.
Marijuana cultivation results in deforestation, soil erosion, habitat destruction, and river diversion. Cannabis plants require nearly double the amount of water needed to grow grapes or tomatoes. Rosamond Naylor, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, said, “Taking water directly from rivers and streams in the summer [to grow marijuana] not only reduces the water available for agriculture but also threatens wildlife species… Regardless of the legal status of marijuana, the way we are currently managing its impacts on water and wildlife in California just doesn’t work.”
Legal indoor growing requires a lot of electricity for lighting, heating, and ventilation. This produces an amount of greenhouse gas emissions equal to that of three million cars each year, and places a burden on public utilities.
**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…
|
# DC & Puerto Rico Statehood - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
DC was never intended to be a US state.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution states: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote of the “indispensable necessity” of the federal government having “complete authority” over the seat of the government, stating the “power [is one] exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world.”
Though writing before DC became the capital, Madison feared that if the capital were in a state, the residents of that state would have undue power over the federal government.
Making DC a state would require not just a simple act of Congress, but a constitutional amendment (one of which has already failed to be ratified), and the revocation of Amendment 23, which gave DC voting rights in presidential elections and electoral college votes.
Further, the Founding Fathers did not intend for DC to suffer “taxation without representation.” Instead, as explained by Jonathan Turley, JD, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, the Founders “repeatedly stated that the District would be represented by the entire Congress and that members (as residents or commuters to that District) would bear a special interest in its operations.”
**Background**
The debate to grant Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico statehood pops up periodically in the news or US Congress. Versions of these debates have been popular since the early 1800s for DC, and since the 1950s for Puerto Rico, though debate over the latter’s autonomy or independence even occurred when the island was under Spanish colonial rule.
The United States has not granted statehood to a jurisdiction since 1959 when Alaska was admitted on Jan. 3 and Hawaii on Aug. 21. [1] [2]
The Admissions Clause (Article IV, Section 3) of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to create a new state: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” [3]
According to the National Constitution Center, the basic process most used for a state to join the Union, and the foundational process used every time since West Virginia joined in 1863, has been for Congress to first make the jurisdiction a US territory, asking for a local constitution that conforms to the US Constitution. Then Congress grants statehood, often requiring the president’s final approval. For many states, Congress has made those steps “a more complicated process,” and required the passage of additional acts or resolutions. [2] [4]
37 states have been added to the United States via Congress and the Admissions Clause after the ratification of the US Constitution, beginning with Vermont in 1791 and ending with Hawaii in 1959. According to Matt Glassman, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, “nineteen were the admission of an entire territory, already bounded and recognized as a political community. Ten were the partial admission of a territory. Some territories became a state, and the residual portion of the territory was reorganized as a new community. One state (California) was created out of unorganized federal land. One state was formed from a bounded nation (Texas). And four states (Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia) were created from land legally held by existing states.“ [4] [5]
For more on the history of the individual DC and Puerto Rico statehood debates, click here.
|
# Hockey Fighting - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Fighting at the professional level sets a bad example for kids.
Even though fighting in youth leagues is banned, young hockey players constantly imitate the tactics used by professionals, both legal and illegal.
The damaging physical effects of fighting are even more significant for young players, since their brains are not fully developed. For younger players, concussions can cause permanent learning and cognitive disabilities, many of which may not be recognized until they grow up.
Young hockey players are already susceptible to catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury, at nearly four times the rate of young football players.
Michael Cusimano, MD, neurosurgeon, said, “Whatever is done at a professional level in sports is emulated almost immediately by children who idolize their heroes. NHL players also have to be aware of this and set a better example for our kids.”
Most of what players are trying to accomplish through fighting can be done by having the referees call more penalties during the game, which sends a better message to kids about conflict resolution.
**Background**
“I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out,” the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield once joked. [1]
In the 2016-2017 National Hockey League (NHL) season, there were 372 fights out of 1,230 games – an average of 0.3 fights per game. [2] Fighting in hockey has been banned nearly everywhere outside of the NHL, including youth games, college play, and the Winter Olympics. [3][4]
Fighting has been part of NHL hockey since the league’s formation in 1917 and its 1922 rule about what was then called “fisticuffs” (that’s an old-fashioned word for fighting). [5][6] The current NHL rulebook addresses fighting in Rule 46, which defines a fight as at least one player punching or taking a swing at another player repeatedly, or players wrestling in a way that is difficult to break up. Players who fight are sent to the penalty box during the game, and may be subject to additional fines or suspensions. [6][7]
In the early 1960s, there was a fight in about 20% of NHL games. That percentage increased to 100% by the 1980s, when there was an average of one fight every game. [8] In 1992, the NHL introduced an instigator rule adding an extra two minutes in the penalty box for anyone caught starting a fight. [9]
Fighting has since decreased: a fight broke out in 29-40% of NHL games from the 2000/2001 season to the 2013/2014 season. Games with fights have steadily decreased since, from 27% of games in the 2014/2015 season to 17% in the 2018/2019 season. [2]
Should Fighting Be Allowed in Hockey?
Pro 1
Allowing fighting makes the sport safer overall by holding players accountable.
Professional hockey is a fast-moving sport, and referees often miss illegal body checking, hits with hockey sticks, and other aggressive plays. Retaliation by fighting brings accountability and prevents more of those dangerous plays from happening. [10]
Hockey players don’t fight just for the sake of violence; combat within the context of the game serves as a deterrent to hurting star players because the aggressors know there will be pay back.
Steven Stamkos, a forward for the Tampa Bay Lightning, said, “You have to police yourselves sometimes on the ice… When you see a fight now it’s a response, someone didn’t like something that was done on the ice. I think you need that. It’s healthy.” [11]
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated that fighting may prevent other injuries in a fast-moving, emotional, and intensely physical game. [12] Former professional player Brandon Prust agreed, stating, “If they take fighting out… I guarantee more people will get hurt from an increase in open-ice body checks.” [13]
Read More
Pro 2
Fighting draws fans and increases the game's entertainment value.
A majority of hockey fans oppose a fighting ban and think the on-ice scuffles are a significant part of the game at the pro level, according to a poll in the Toronto Star newspaper. [19] Travis Hughes, SB Nation hockey writer, said, “Fighting exists in hockey because we enjoy watching people fight.” [20]
Hockey fight clips get shown on ESPN’s SportsCenter and have millions of views on YouTube. [21] Brawls increase attendance: an economic study of hockey found that “violence, specifically fighting, tends to attract fans in large numbers across the United States and Canada.” [22] Fights help the NHL stand out from other sports because no other team sports sanction brawling.
SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross wrote, “Fights can add entertainment value, change a game and have fans talking for days.” [23]
Rich Clune, a Maple Leafs forward and long-time fighter, said, “I think the NHL is cognizant of the fact that they can’t eliminate it and turn it into a non-contact sport because I don’t think it’ll sell… especially in America where the game is still growing.” [24]
Read More
Pro 3
Fighting is a hockey tradition that exists in the official rules and as an unwritten code among players.
98% of NHL players surveyed in 2012 said they do not want to ban fighting in hockey. [30] Fighting is an essential part of the professional game, and it is governed by the NHL rulebook. [7]
Ross Bernstein, the author of the book The Code: The Unwritten Rules of Fighting and Retaliation in the NHL, stated that “hockey is, and always has been, a sport steeped in a culture of violence. Players have learned, however, to navigate through its mazes and labyrinths of physical contact by adhering to an honor code of conduct.” [10]
The code dictates who can fight and for what reasons, and has reportedly existed for over 100 years. [10] The fact that fights happen less in the postseason, when teams are focused on winning the championship, shows that players adhere to an unwritten code. [29]
Read More
Con 1
Fighting in hockey leads to concussions, mental health problems, and death.
Charles H. Tator, PhD, MD, neurosurgeon, believes fighting causes 10% of all concussions in hockey. [14]
NHL officials expressed in private emails their views that fighting can lead to concussions, long-term health problems, and heavy use of pain medication. Bill Daly, NHL Deputy Commissioner, wrote, “Fighting raises the incidence of head injuries/concussions, which raises the incidence of depression onset, which raises the incidence of personal tragedies.” [15]
Former NHL player Derek Boogaard filled an unofficial role known as an enforcer, which is a player whose purpose is to fight as a means of responding to dirty plays by the opposing team. [16] After he died at age 28 in 2011, doctors examined Boogaard’s brain and determined that he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is believed to be caused by repeated head injuries. [17]
Two other enforcers died within four months of each that same year, raising concerns about the physical, as well as mental and emotional, toll that fighting takes on players. [18]
Read More
Con 2
Fighting at the professional level sets a bad example for kids.
Even though fighting in youth leagues is banned, young hockey players constantly imitate the tactics used by professionals, both legal and illegal. [25]
The damaging physical effects of fighting are even more significant for young players, since their brains are not fully developed. For younger players, concussions can cause permanent learning and cognitive disabilities, many of which may not be recognized until they grow up. [26]
Young hockey players are already susceptible to catastrophic spinal cord and brain injury, at nearly four times the rate of young football players. [27]
Michael Cusimano, MD, neurosurgeon, said, “Whatever is done at a professional level in sports is emulated almost immediately by children who idolize their heroes. NHL players also have to be aware of this and set a better example for our kids.” [28]
Most of what players are trying to accomplish through fighting can be done by having the referees call more penalties during the game, which sends a better message to kids about conflict resolution. [29]
Read More
Con 3
Fighting in hockey glorifies violence.
Matthew Sekeres, writer at Globe and Mail, said that “Hockey is a sport that solves its problems with violence.” [32]
Allowing hockey players to fight creates a culture in which fighting is respected and valued, according to a study in the journal Men and Masculinities, which stated, “The findings of this study indicate that interpersonal aggression is common in the lives of these hockey players, both on and off the ice.” [31]
When the use of violence is approved and legitimized among hockey players, they are more likely to participate in other forms of violence.
For instance, a study found that people seeking a career in professional hockey are more likely to commit sexual assault and have abusive relationships than non-hockey players and people who play hockey as a hobby. [33][37][38]
Researchers have found that hockey violence makes fans more hostile in the stands and off the rink. [34][35][36]
Read More
Click for an Encyclopaedia Britannica video about hockey.
Discussion Questions
1.Should fighting be allowed in hockey? Explain your answer.
2. Should fighting be allowed in any sport? Which sports? Why or why not?
3. How should inter-player conflicts be resolved in hockey and other sports? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Consider this NBC Sports article with explanations from hockey players about why they fight.
2. Evaluate the NHL’s rules on “fisticuffs.”
3. Examine ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski’s argument that fighting in hockey is at a low and should stay that way.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Sports Illustrated, “Wit and Wisdom of Hockey,” si.com, Oct. 1, 2013
2.David M. Singer, “NHL Fight Stats,” hockeyfights.com (accessed Mar. 9, 2021)
3.Jeff Z. Klein, “No Fights. No Checking. Can This Be Hockey?,” nytimes.com, Mar. 5, 2011
4.Mike Brophy, “Fighting in NHL Is Down Naturally, but Now Is the Time to Ban It Outright,” thehockeynews.com, Nov. 14, 2015
5.Jeff Z. Klein, “Hockey’s History, Woven with Violence,” nytimes.com, Dec. 10, 2011
6.Graham Flanagan, “This Is Why Fighting Is Allowed in Pro Hockey — and Why the NHL Has No Plans to Ban It,” businessinsider.com, Feb. 18, 2017
7.National Hockey League, “Official Rules,” nhl.com, 2017
8.Gregory DeAngelo, Brad R. Humphreys, and Imke Reimers, “Community and Specialized Enforcement: Complements or Substitutes?,” ssrn.com, Mar. 23, 2016
9.Adam Greuel, “Is the NHL Instigator Rule Really Necessary?,” bleacherreport.com, July 23, 2008
10.John Buccigross, “The Pros and Cons of Fighting in the NHL,” espn.com, Jan. 8, 2007
11.Chris Kuc, “Why Is Fighting Vanishing from the NHL?,” chicagotribune.com, Feb. 6, 2016
12.Sports Illustrated, “Commissioner Gary Bettman Fights to Keep Fighting in NHL,” si.com, June 27, 2016
13.Brandon Prust, “Why We Fight,” theplayerstribune.com, Feb. 3, 2015
14.Jeff Z. Klein, “In Debate about Fighting in Hockey, Medical Experts Weigh In,” nytimes.com, Dec. 12, 2011
15.John Branch, “In Emails, N.H.L. Officials Conceded Concussion Risks of Fights,” nytimes.com, Mar. 28, 2016
16.Sporting Charts, “Enforcer,” sportingcharts.com (accessed Feb. 27, 2018)
17.John Branch, “Derek Boogaard: A Brain ‘Going Bad,'” nytimes.com, Dec. 5, 2011
18.Tom Cohen, “Three Hockey Enforcers Die Young in Four Months, Raising Questions,” cnn.com, Sep. 2, 2011
19.Chris Zelkovich, “Hockey Fans Love Fighting, Survey Says,” thestar.com, Mar. 17, 2009
20.Travis Hughes, “Why Do Hockey Players Fight?,” sbnation.com, Oct. 14, 2011
21.Sean McIndoe, “The Seven Levels of Dirty Hockey,” grantland.com, Feb. 19, 2013
22.Rodney J. Paul, “Variations in NHL Attendance: The Impact of Violence, Scoring, and Regional Rivalries,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2003
23.John Buccigross, “Here’s Why Fighting Is Making a Small Comeback in the NHL,” espn.com, Oct. 21, 2008
24.Jonas Siegel, “NHL Fight Numbers Continue to Decline,” cbc.ca, Apr. 6, 2016
25.Glenn Keays and B. Pless, “Influence of Viewing Professional Ice Hockey on Youth Hockey Injuries,” Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, Mar. 2013
26.Nicola Davis, “Childhood Concussion Linked to Lifelong Health and Social Problems,” theguardian.com, Aug. 23, 2016
27.Anthony Marchie and Michael D. Cusimano, “Bodychecking and Concussions in Ice Hockey: Should Our Youth Pay the Price?,” CMAJ, July 2003
28.Michael Cusimano, “Why We Need to Fix Fighting in Hockey and the NHL: Our Kids,” theglobeandmail.com, Mar. 25, 2017
29.Nadav Goldschmied and Samantha Espindola, “‘I Went to a Fight the Other Night and a Hockey Game Broke Out’: Is Professional Hockey Fighting Calculated or Impulsive?,” Sports Health, Sep. 2013
30.Greg Wyshynski, “Once again, NHL Players Voice Overwhelming Opposition to Fighting Ban,” yahoo.com, Feb. 20, 2012
31.Nick T. Pappas, Patrick C. McKenry, and Beth Skilken Catlett, “Athlete Aggression on the Rink and off the Ice: Athlete Violence and Aggression in Hockey and Interpersonal Relationships,” Men and Masculinities, Jan. 2004
32.Matthew Sekeres, “Hockey Can Bring out the Violence in Peaceful Canadians,” theglobeandmail.com, June 17, 2011
33.Gorden A. Bloom and Michael D. Smith, “Hockey Violence: A Test of Cultural Spillover Theory,” Sociology of Sport Journal, Mar. 1996
34.W. Andrew Harrell, “Verbal Aggressiveness in Spectators at Professional Hockey Games: The Effects of Tolerance of Violence and Amount of Exposure to Hockey,” Human Relations, Aug. 1981
35.Leonard Berkowitz and Joseph T. Alioto, “The Meaning of an Observed Event as a Determinant of Its Aggressive Consequences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nov. 1973
36.Elaine Cassel and Douglas A. Bernstein, Criminal Behavior, 2013
37.Shady Elien, “Link between Hockey and Rape Studied,” straight.com, May 12, 2010
38.Michael Kasdan, “Hockey, Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse: Time for Change,” goodmenproject.com, Oct. 7, 2016
More Sports Debate Topics
Should Colleges and Universities Pay College Athletes? – Proponents say colleges profit unfairly off of the athletes. Opponents say the athletes are paid in tuition.
Should Performance-Enhancing Drugs Be Accepted in Sports? – The debate about doping in sports explores criminalization, types of drugs, and the olympics.
Are the Olympic Games an Overall Benefit for Their Host Countries and Cities? – Proponents say hosting the Olympics boosts local economies. Opponents say the games are a financial drain on host cities.
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalizing marijuana results in decreased teen marijuana use.
Researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine found that “the rates of marijuana use by young people are falling despite the fact more US states are legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana use and the number of adults using the drug has increased.” Marijuana use among 8th graders in Washington state decreased following legalization in 2012, from 9.8 percent to 7.3 percent in 2014/2016, according to a Dec. 2018 report from RAND. A study from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that past-year marijuana use decreased by 17%, from 15.8% in 2002 to 13.1% in 2014, among US kids ages 12 to 17. Colorado teens between 12 and 17 years old reported a nearly 12% drop in marijuana use just two years after adult use was legalized, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
The Marijuana Policy Project, an organization that leads marijuana legalization campaigns, said, “Study after study has confirmed that marijuana policy reforms do not cause rates of youth marijuana use to increase… The most in-depth state surveys suggest modest decreases in rates of youth marijuana use in Colorado and Washington.” Even though retail marijuana shops opened in Colorado and Washington in 2014, past-year marijuana use among teens in those states was lower in 2015-2016 than in 2014-2015.
**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**
A higher minimum wage would reduce government welfare spending.
If low-income workers earned more money, their dependence on, and eligibility for, government benefits would decrease. The Center for American Progress reported in 2014 that raising the federal minimum wage by 6% to $10.10 would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) by 6% or $4.6 billion. The Economic Policy Institute determined that by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, more than 1.7 million Americans would no longer be dependent on government assistance programs. They report the increase would shave $7.6 billion off annual government spending on income-support programs.
**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…
|
# Saturday Halloween - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Celebrating Halloween on a Saturday would make the holiday safer for children.
A study found an 83% increase in fatal crashes involving children and a 55% increase in pedestrian fatal crashes when Halloween falls on a weeknight. There’s been an increase of at least 21 fatal crashes every time the holiday fell on a Friday since 1994. Safe Kids Worldwide stated, “Twice as many kids are killed while walking on Halloween than any other day of the year.”
82% of parents don’t add high visibility aids such as reflective tape or glow sticks to their kids’ costumes, and 63% of trick-or-treaters don’t carry flashlights, according to the Halloween & Costume Association, an organization that created a petition to move Halloween to Saturdays signed by over 150,000 people.
Moving Halloween to a Saturday would allow trick-or-treating to begin in the daylight hours, reducing risk of fatal crashes and eliminating the need for costume safety alterations and flashlights. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said fatal crashes can occur on Halloween when trick-or-treaters dart out into the street unexpectedly. Communities could create safer walking conditions on a Saturday Halloween by blocking off selected roads, which wouldn’t be practical on weeknights when people are returning home from work.
**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]
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Increasing the minimum wage would increase worker productivity and reduce employee turnover.
Increases in wages are associated with increased productivity, according to many economists, including Janet Yellen, PhD, Chair of the Federal Reserve. Alan Manning, DPhil, Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, stated in 2014: “As the minimum wage rises and work becomes more attractive, labor turnover rates and absenteeism tend to decline.” A 2014 University of California at Berkeley study found “striking evidence that… turnover rates for teens and restaurant workers fall substantially following a minimum wage increase,” declining by about 2% for a 10% increase in the minimum wage. A 2014 survey found that 53% of small business owners believed that “with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover and increased productivity and customer satisfaction.”
**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…
|
# Zoos - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Zoos don't educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive.
A review published in Animal Studies Repository concluded, “to date there is no compelling or even particularly suggestive evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, and interest in conservation in visitors.” Even a study widely cited to justify the argument that zoos educate the public stated, “there was no overall statistically significant change in understanding [of ecological concepts] seen” because visitors know a lot about ecology before going to the zoo.
TV shows such as Planet Earth bring wild animals into living rooms, allowing people to see the animals in their natural habitats without causing harm to animals such as the endangered snow leopard. Romesh Ranganathan, a British comedian, stated, “It still slightly surprises me that anybody thinks that we should have zoos at all. The animals always look miserable in captivity… [T]he idea that kids only get excited about things they can see in the flesh is ridiculous. My kids are obsessed with dinosaurs that no longer exist, and Skylanders, which have never existed.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Zoos have existed in some form since at least 2500 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, where records indicate giraffes, bears, dolphins, and other animals were kept by aristocrats. The oldest still operating zoo in the world, Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna, opened in 1752. [1] [2]
The contemporary zoo evolved from 19th century European zoos. Largely modeled after the London Zoo in Regent’s Park, these zoos were intended for “genteel amusement and edification,” according to Emma Marris, environmental writer and Institute Fellow at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. As such, reptile houses, aviaries, and insectariums were added with animals grouped taxonomically, to move zoos beyond the spectacle of big, scary animals. [40]
Carl Hegenbeck, a German exotic animal importer, introduced the modern model of more natural habitats for animals instead of obvious cages at his Animal Park in Hamburg in 1907. That change prompted the shift in zoo narrative from entertainment to the protection of animals. In the late 20th century, the narrative changed again to the conservation of animals to stave off extinction. [40]
Controversy has historically surrounded zoos, from debates over displaying “exotic” humans in exhibits to zookeepers not knowing what to feed animals. A gorilla named Madame Ningo, the first gorilla to arrive in the United States in 1911 who was to live at the Bronx Zoo, was fed hot dinners and cooked meat despite gorillas being herbivores, for example. [3] [4]
The contemporary debate about zoos tends to focus on animal welfare on both sides, whether zoos protect animals or imprison them.
|
# Police Body Cameras - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Police body cameras are a powerful tool in domestic violence cases.
When an officer wearing a camera arrives at a domestic violence scene, the camera is able to record the immediate aftermath of the attack, including injuries the victim has suffered, as well as victim statements that may be more honest than later statements once victims remember emotional and financial ties to their abusers. Victims may also feel more secure in their testimony with video evidence backing up their statements.
Elliott Knetsch, JD, Prosecutor for the City of Burnsville, Minnesota, whose police department uses body-worn cameras, stated, “When the cops are called and come through the door, the victim is very happy and relieved to see them. They feel safe. They tell the officer what happened. That statement given right at that moment is more likely to be the truth than what comes out even half an hour later, when the implications of what has happened start to set in.”
In the six months since body cameras were deployed in Burnsville, police recorded video for almost every domestic violence case, something former Chief Deputy of the Dakota County Attorney’s Office, Phil Prokopowicz, JD, found useful. He stated that camera footage “can be influential in resolving the case in terms of negotiations. The defendant gets to see the act and know what will be displayed in front of the jury. The documenting of those first moments is very critical to those types of cases, as well as any admissions that may occur as officers are entering.”
Officers in the United Kingdom and Queensland, Australia echoed this benefit, stating some abusers plead guilty because they knew there was video footage evidence against them.
**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]
|
# School Vouchers - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
School vouchers improve education in general by making public schools compete with private schools for students in a free market.
Public schools will have to offer a better education and safer spaces for learning, and be accountable to parents’ and students’ needs in order to compete with the private schools.
Lennie Jarratt, Project Manager for School Reform at the Heartland Institute, stated, “free markets offer a much better way to hold educational institutions accountable for their failures. Under this model, inadequate schools lose money or are forced to close after consistently failing to perform… Why should we reward terrible schools with an indefinite stream of tax dollars?”
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, PhD, a champion of the free market, argued for school vouchers in 1955, stating vouchers would result in “great widening in the educational opportunities open to our children.”
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons.
Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends. Women were dismissed for getting married, becoming pregnant, wearing pants, or being out too late in the evenings.
**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 College Athletes Be Paid? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
College athletes are often valued at more than $1 million, but they (and their families) frequently live below the poverty line.
A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the top two college football positions–the quarterback and wide receiver–were worth $2.4 million and $1.3 million per year respectively, while starting men’s basketball players in the Power Five schools were worth between $800,000 and $1.2 million per year.
If college players earned about 50% of their teams’ revenues like the NFL and NBA players do, the average football player’s yearly salary would be $360,000 and the average basketball player’s yearly salary would be $500,000.
The study found that “[t]he player-level analysis reveals that the existing limits on player compensation effectively transfers resources away from students who are more likely to be black and more likely to come from poor neighborhoods towards students who are more likely to be white and come from higher-income neighborhoods.”
College athletes are required to make up the difference between NCAA scholarships and the actual cost of living. Tuition shortfalls amount to thousands of dollars per year and leave about 85% of players to live below the poverty line. For example, fair market value for a University of Texas football player was $513,922. However, players lived $778 below the federal poverty line and owed $3,624 in tuition.
About 25% of Division I athletes reported food poverty in the past year and almost 14% reported being homeless in the past year. Erin McGeoy, a former water polo athlete at George Washington University, explained, “a common occurrence was that we would run out of meal money halfway through the semester and that’s when I started to run into troubles of food insecurity.” She turned to boarding dogs in her no-dogs-allowed apartment in order to pay rent because housing costs increased each year but her housing allowance remained static.
The NCAA keept players in poverty and denied them ways to earn money, while making millions on their performance.
**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]
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Economy:
Reagan’s economic policies, such as a reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an unprecedented 92-month long economic boom, from Nov. 1982 to July 1990, with expansion and growth in the GDP (+36%), employment (+20 million jobs), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+15%).
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Traffic deaths and arrests for DUIs do not increase, and may decrease, when marijuana is legalized.
Traffic deaths dropped 11% on average in states that legalized medical marijuana. Arrests for driving under the influence have decreased in Washington and Colorado. Benjamin Hansen, an economics professor at the University of Oregon at Eugene who studied traffic deaths post-medical marijuana legalization, stated that “Public safety doesn’t decrease with increased access to marijuana, rather it improves.”
Studies show that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to be more cautious and take fewer risks than drunk drivers, such as making fewer lane changes and reducing speed. A fact sheet about marijuana’s effects on drivers posted on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration website stated that “Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment.”
**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…
|
# Corporal Punishment in K-12 Schools - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Corporal punishment can inflict long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.
A Dec. 2016 study found that children who were physically punished were more likely to have problems with aggression and attention.
Studies have shown that frequent use of corporal punishment leads to a higher risk for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, stress, and other mental health concerns. Children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to relate forms of violence with power, and are, therefore, more likely to be a bully or abuse a partner.
**Background**
Nineteen states legally permit corporal punishment in public schools, while 31 states ban the practice. [28][29] Corporal punishment is defined as a “physical punishment” and a “punishment that involves hitting someone.” In K-12 schools, corporal punishment is often spanking, with either a hand or paddle, or striking a student across his/her hand with a ruler or leather strap. More extreme instances, including the use of a chemical spray and Taser, have also been recorded by US schools. [2] [7]
In 2014, 94% of parents with children three to four years old reported that they had spanked their child within the past year, and 76% of men and 65% of women agreed with the statement, “a child sometimes needs a good spanking.” [9] The debate over corporal punishment, especially in schools, remains vigorous.
Nineteen states permit corporal punishment in public schools via law: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming [28] [31]
Thirty-one states and DC ban corporal punishment in public schools: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin [29] [31]
Three states with a ban on corporal punishment allow teachers to use “a reasonable degree of force” on a child who is creating a disturbance: Maine, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. [19][20][21]
70% of corporal punishment happens in five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas—with the latter two making up 35% of all cases. [8]
There is no federal ban or law regulating corporal punishment, but the practice is prohibited in the federal Head Start program. [4] In 1977, the US Supreme Court decision in Ingraham v. Wright found that corporal punishment was not cruel and unusual punishment and is, thus, allowed in schools. [4] No more recent federal court ruling has been made.
Data shows that more than 109,000 students (down from 163,333 in the 2011-2012 school year) were physically punished in more than 4,000 schools in 21 states during the 2013-2014 school year, including some students in states where the practice is banned. [4][12] Rural, low-income, black, male students were more likely to have experienced corporal punishment. [9] Children with disabilities also experience corporal punishment at higher rates than other students. [9]
Some school districts have very specific rules for the punishment. Central Parish in Louisiana states that three swats with a paddle “approximately 20 inches long, 4 inches wide, and not exceeding ¼ inch in thickness” is the appropriate punishment. [4] However, other districts do not offer guidance. Daryl Scoggin, the superintendent of the Tate County, Mississippi, school district stated: “It’s kind of like, I had it done to me, and so I knew what I needed to do. I guess it’s more that you learn by watching… We don’t practice on dummies or anything like that.” [4]
Internationally, 60 countries ban corporal punishment in all instances, including at home. [6] [30] Those countries include Japan and the Seychelles, both of which passed laws in 2020, and Sweden, which passed a ban in 1979. [30] Most countries ban corporal punishment in some instances. [6] According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, sixteen countries do not ban corporal punishment in any instances: Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Dominica, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Palestine, Tuvalu, and Tanzania. [30]
Should Corporal Punishment Be Used in K-12 Schools?
Pro 1
Corporal punishment is the appropriate discipline for certain children when used in moderation.
The negative effects of corporal punishment cited by critics are attached to prolonged and excessive use of the punishment. [25] Occasional use for serious behavioral issues is appropriate because time-out or taking away a toy may not work to correct behavior in a particularly willful or rambunctious child. [24] [25]
LaShaun Williams, founder of childcare group Sitter Circle, stated, “there are some children who like to push their limits. Those are the children who may require a pop. Knowing your child is the key to nailing down the most effective forms of discipline… [T]oday’s disrespectful youth have shown what happens when necessary spanking is forgone.” [24]
Read More
Pro 2
Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school.
Children are better able to make decisions about their behavior, exercise self-control, and be accountable for their actions when they understand the penalty they face for misbehaving is comparable to their actions. [24]
Harold Bennet, PhD, President and Dean of the Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary, stated, “children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments… in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.” [16]
Some experts state that corporal punishment prevents children from persisting in their bad behavior and growing up to be criminals. [27]
Read More
Pro 3
Corporal punishment is often chosen by students over suspension or detention.
When given the choice, students frequently choose corporal punishment because it is a quick punishment that doesn’t cause older children to miss class or other activities, or younger children to miss their valued time on the playground. [26] The child’s education is not interrupted and make-up work is not required for missed class instruction.
Allison Collins, a high school senior at Robbinsville High School in North Carolina, stated she chose corporal punishment over in-school suspension when her phone rang in class. [26] Her principal, David Matheson, stated, “Most kids will tell you that they choose the paddling so they don’t miss class.” [26]
Read More
Con 1
Corporal punishment can inflict long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.
A Dec. 2016 study found that children who were physically punished were more likely to have problems with aggression and attention. [15] [17] [18]
Studies have shown that frequent use of corporal punishment leads to a higher risk for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, stress, and other mental health concerns. [17] [18] Children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to relate forms of violence with power, and are, therefore, more likely to be a bully or abuse a partner. [17] [18]
Read More
Con 2
Corporal punishment creates an unsafe and violent school environment.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says corporal punishment “may contribute to disruptive and violent student behavior.” [11]
Children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to hit or use other violence against people in order to get their way, putting other children at risk for increased bullying and physical abuse and teachers in potentially violent classrooms. [17][18]
The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry stated, “[c]orporal punishment signals to the child that a way to settle interpersonal conflicts is to use physical force and inflict pain. Such children may in turn resort to such behavior themselves.” [10]
Read More
Con 3
Corporal punishment is an inappropriate punishment that harms the education of children.
Corporal punishment has been banned in US prisons and military training, and animals are protected from the same sort of punishment in every state. [14]
Students who experience corporal punishment in kindergarten are more likely to have lower vocabulary scores in fourth grade and lower fifth grade math scores. [17]
According to the National Women’s Law Center, “Harsh physical punishments do not improve students’ in-school behavior or academic performance. In fact… schools in states where corporal punishment is used perform worse on national academic assessments than schools in states that prohibit corporal punishment.” [14]
Read More
Discussion Questions
Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools? Why or why not?Should federal laws about the use of corporal punishment be established? Why or why not?Should corporal punishment be allowed in certain circumstances? Which situations? Why or why not?
Take Action
1. Evaluate an opinion article about reinstating corporal punishment in California.
2. Learn about the laws governing corporal punishment in the United States.
3. Consider the Southern Poverty Law Center and the UCLA Center for Civil Rights Remedies report on corporal punishment inequities.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Education Week, "Is Corporal Punishment an Option in Your State?," edweek.org, Aug. 23, 2016
2.Merriam-Webster, "Corporal Punishment," merriam-webster.com (accessed Apr. 10, 2017)
3.Russell Wilson, "Bill Would Finally, Fully Ban Corporal Punishment in Maine Schools," mainebeacon.com, Mar. 1, 2017
4.Sarah D. Sparks and Alex Harwin, "Corporal Punishment Use Found in Schools in 21 States," edweek.org, Aug. 23, 2016
5.Tim Walker, "Why Are 19 States Still Allowing Corporal Punishment in Schools?," neatoday.org, Oct. 17, 2016
6.Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, Interactive Map, endcorporalpunishment.org (accessed Apr. 10, 2017)
7.PBS NewsHour, "Assessing Whether Corporal Punishment Helps Students, or Hurts Them," pbs.org, Aug. 23, 2016
8.Melinda D. Anderson, "Where Teachers Are Still Allowed to Spank Students," theatlantic.com, Dec. 15, 2015
9.Child Trends, "Attitudes toward Spanking," childtrends.org, Nov. 2015
10.American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "Corporal Punishment in Schools," aacap.org, Sep. 2014
11.American Academy of Pediatrics, "Corporal Punishment in Schools," Pediatrics, Aug. 2000
12.Donna St. George, "Parents Allege Corporal Punishment at Blue Ribbon School in Maryland," washingtonpost.com, Dec. 6, 2015
13.John B. King, Jr., Letter to States Calling for an End to Corporal Punishment in Schools, ed.gov, Nov. 22, 2016
14.National Women’s Law Center, "An Open Letter to End Corporal Punishment in Schools," nwlc.org, Nov. 21, 2016
15.Romeo Vitelli, "Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child?," psychologytoday.com, Jan. 18, 2017
16.NPR, "Does Sparing the Rod Spoil the Child?," npr.org, June 19, 2012
17.Emily Cuddy and Richard V. Reeves, "Hitting Kids: American Parenting and Physical Punishment," brookings.edu, Nov. 6, 2014
18.Catherine A. Taylor, Jennifer A. Manganello, Shawna J. Lee, and Janet C. Rice, "Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior," Pediatrics, May 2010
19.FindLaw, "South Dakota Corporal Punishment in Public Schools Law," findlaw.com (accessed Apr. 11, 2017)
20.FindLaw, "New Hampshire Corporal Punishment in Public Schools Law," findlaw.com (accessed Apr. 11, 2017)
21.Russell Wilson, "Bill Would Finally, Fully Ban Corporal Punishment in Maine Schools," mainebeacon.com, Mar. 1, 2017
22.Brian Eason, "Bill Would Ban Corporal Punishment in Colorado Public Schools," denverpost.com, Jan. 23, 2017
23.Nicholas Garcia, "Corporal Punishment Bill Goes Down in Colorado Senate Committee," denverpost.com, Mar. 13, 2017
24.L. Nicole Williams, "8 Reasons to Spank Your Kids," madamenoire.com, Feb. 8, 2011
25.Okey Chigbo, "Disciplinary Spanking Is Not Child Abuse," Child Abuse, 2004
26.Jess Clark, "Where Corporal Punishment Is Still Used in Schools, It's Roots Run Deep," npr.org, Apr. 12, 2017
27.Walter E. Williams, "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment," questia.com, Sep. 13, 1999
28.Christina Caron, "In 19 States, It's Still Legal to Spank Children in Public Schools," nytimes.com, Dec. 13, 2018
29.Elizabeth T. Gershoff and Sarah A. Font, "Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy," Social Policy Report, 2016
30Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, "Global Progress," endcorporalpunishment.org (accessed Nov. 2, 2020)
31.Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, "Country Report for the USA: State-by State Analysis of the Legality of Corporal Punishment in the US," endcorporalpunishment.org, Mar. 2020
More School Debates
Is Homework Beneficial? – Proponents say homework improves student achievement. Opponents say too much homework is harmful to students.
Should K-12 Students Dissect Animals in Science Classrooms? – Proponents say dissecting real animals is a better learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment.
Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? – Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression.
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Employer Vaccine Mandates - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Vaccine mandates have a history of effectively reducing the spread and health consequences of communicable disease.
Mandates increase vaccination rates, and high vaccination rates lower disease infection rates overall, as well as the severity of diseases in vaccinated people. This is proven by data related to American school kids. States with stricter school vaccine mandates had a higher percentage of vaccinated children and a lower rate of vaccine-preventable diseases in children.
The history of vaccine mandates effectively curbing the spread and consequences of disease date to the first US “vaccine” mandate. The smallpox mortality rate during the US Revolutionary War was about 50%. Both sides were losing troops at an alarming rate. The British Army did not inoculate their troops. However, once General George Washington ordered all Continental Army troops be inoculated against smallpox, the mortality rate for Washington’s troops dropped to 2%–a feat some historians say won the Revolutionary War.
For a more current example, journalist Dan Gorenstein, summarized a 2020 study on hospital employee vaccine mandates: “So in the case of the California hospitals, the [flu vaccine] mandates increased uptake of the flu shot by about 10%. But… what makes this paper really interesting is that… [t]here was a 40% drop in the number of people who entered the hospital and caught the flu inside the facility… [and] a 20% drop in the number of people coming to the hospital with flu-like symptoms. So here’s the big idea: Increasing vaccination rates made the hospitals themselves safer and it meant fewer people in the community were getting sick. So for employers who are thinking about whether to institute the [vaccine] mandate or not, they could ask themselves, is my business a social hub the way, like, a hospital is? And the bigger your business is a social hub, the more a vaccine mandate could curb spread.”
**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]
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
People who read print text comprehend more, remember more, and learn more than those who read digital text.
The brain interprets printed and digital text in different ways, and people generally read digital text 20-30% slower than print. According to Pulitzer Prize winning technology writer Nicholas Carr, peer-reviewed studies show that reading hyper-linked text may increase the brain’s “cognitive load,” lowering the ability to process, store, and retain information, or “translate the new material into conceptual knowledge.” In addition, students who type lecture notes instead of write their notes by hand tended to write more, process less, and perform worse on recall tests.
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalizing marijuana would end the costly enforcement of marijuana laws and free up police resources.
Arresting people for marijuana possession costs the United States between $1.19 billion and $6.03 billion annually. These costs include police, judicial, legal, and corrections expenses. Incarcerating marijuana offenders costs the United States an estimated $600 million per year. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that marijuana legalization would save between $7.7 billion and $13.7 billion annually.
Instead of arresting people for marijuana, police officers could focus on serious crimes including rape, assault, and homicide. For example, marijuana legalization in Washington significantly freed up law enforcement resources; marijuana possession arrests dropped from 5,531 the year before legalization to 120 the year after.
Howard Wooldridge, a former police detective from Michigan who co-founded LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), said, “Marijuana prohibition is a horrible waste of good police time. Every hour spent looking for pot reduces public safety.”
**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…
|
# Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Cancel culture allows marginalized people to seek accountability where the justice system fails.
The #metoo movement gave innumerable women (and some men) the ability to call out and maybe cancel their countless abusers in a forum where the accusations might be heard and matter.
Olivia Goldhill, Quartz science reporter, explained, “Men have sexually assaulted and harassed women with impunity for millennia. Incredibly, ever since the allegations against Hollywood impresario Harvey Weinstein stopped being an ‘open secret,’ a few famous men have finally faced repercussions for their actions. Where inept courts and HR departments have failed, a new tactic has succeeded: Women talking publicly about harassment on social media, fueling the public condemnation that’s forced men from their jobs and destroyed their reputations.”
Constance Grady, Staff Writer at Vox, stated, “Historically, we as a culture don’t do much to the rich and famous and powerful men of the world when women say that those men have hurt them. We give them Oscars and a seat on the Supreme Court and in the White House, and we call their accusers liars or hysterical or unreliable. We treat the men and their power as sacrosanct and the women and their pain as disposable.”
By Oct. 2018, the end of the first year of #metoo, 429 people faced 1,700 allegations of sexual misconduct. That cohort included Harvey Weinstein, now convicted of third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. The allegations against Weinstein date to the late 1980s, and had long been an “open secret” in Hollywood. Without cancel culture, Weinstein may still be in a position of power.
Weinstein is the outlier in terms of criminal justice. Few powerful men are convicted of sexual misconduct. As of July 3, 2020, #metoo allegations have resulted in only 7 convictions and 5 other people charged with sexual misconduct. However, 201 men in positions of power lost their jobs in the first year of #metoo due to sexual misconduct allegations that were posted on social media.
As Jill Filipovic, JD, lawyer and writer, explained, “for the powerful, criminal convictions are rare, in part because these people have better tools to work the justice system and rarely fit the stereotype of a convict. So the court of public opinion ends up being where accusations–and just as often, accusers–are tried.”
Beyond #metoo, other movements are able to demand justice. Black Lives Matter has repeatedly called out the killing of black men in particular by police officers. The result was perhaps the biggest global civil rights movement in history when 15 to 26 million people marched globally for black rights in June 2020.
**Background**
Cancel culture, also known as callout culture, is the removal (“canceling”) of support for individuals and their work due to an opinion or action on their part deemed objectionable to the parties “calling” them out. [1]
The individuals are typically first called out on social media to magnify the public knowledge of their perceived offense, whereupon the campaign to cancel ensues. The canceling can take several forms, including the exerting of pressure on organizations to cancel the individual’s public appearances or speaking engagements and, in the case of businesses deemed offensive, organizing boycotts of their products. [1]
Celebrities and social and political leaders are frequently the targets of cancel campaigns. Actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was found guilty in 2018 of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman and accused of assault by more than 50 women, is only one of many, recent, high-profile examples. [2] But everyday people can be caught in the crosshairs as well. A public relations executive, for example, tweeted an offensive joke about AIDS before boarding a plane in London and traveling to South Africa. An uproar on Twitter followed, and by the time her plane landed, she had been “called out,” “canceled,” and fired. [3]
The cancel campaigns are not always so successful or one-sided. In July 2020, after Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue praised President Trump for promoting an Hispanic prosperity initiative, liberal Latino leaders organized a boycott of Goya products despite Unanue’s similar praise of President Obama. Instead of bankrupting the company, the attempted cancellation prompted the Bodega and Small Business Association to come to the company’s defense with a “buycott” to support the more than 13,000 shops that sell Goya products and thousands of black and Latino Goya employees. [4] [5]
Anyone who remembers reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter knows cancel culture is not new. What is new, however, is social media’s ability to boost the speed, scope, and impact of a “cancel” and the influence this has had on traditional bastions of free speech. The now endemic quality of cancel culture has even spawned college classes, such as one taught by Visiting Professor Loretta J. Ross at Smith College, in which Ross says she is “challenging the call-out culture.” [34]
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Science / Technology:
Clinton’s instructions to NASA in 1993 led to productivity gains and reduced overhead for the International Space Station program, as well as a better research relationship with Russia. Clinton fought to bridge the “digital divide,” an inequality of access to technology that would make poor people even more disadvantaged in education and employment opportunities. His policies helped schools and libraries introduce computers and the internet to people who wouldn’t otherwise have had access.
**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…
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Violent video games reinforce fighting as a means of dealing with conflict by rewarding the use of violent action with increased life force, more weapons, moving on to higher levels, and more.
Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished.
The reward structure is one distinguishing factor between violent video games and other violent media such as movies and television shows, which do not reward viewers nor allow them to actively participate in violence.
An analysis of 81 video games rated for teens ages 13 and up found that 73 games (90%) rewarded injuring other characters, and 56 games (69%) rewarded killing.
**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…
|
# Space Colonization - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Space colonization is the next logical step in space exploration and human growth.
Fred Kennedy, PhD, President of Momentus, a space transportation company, explained, “I’ll assert that a fundamental truth – repeatedly borne out by history – is that expanding, outwardly-focused civilizations are far less likely to turn on themselves, and far more likely to expend their fecundity on growing habitations, conducting important research and creating wealth for their citizens. A civilization that turns away from discovery and growth stagnates.” Kennedy pointed out that while humans still have problems to resolve on Earth including civil rights violations and wealth inequality, “Forgoing opportunities to expand our presence into the cosmos to achieve better outcomes here at home hasn’t eliminated these scourges.” We shouldn’t avoid exploring space based on the false dichotomy of fixing Earthly problems first.
Humans are not a species of stagnation. Jeff Bezos, Founder of Amazon.com who traveled to space in 2021, asserted that exploring space would result in expanded human genius: “The solar system can easily support a trillion humans. And if we had a trillion humans, we would have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts and unlimited, for all practical purposes, resources and solar power unlimited for all practical purposes.”
Space, in particular, is connected to exploration and growth in the human imagination. In 2014 Elon Musk stated, “It’s obvious that space is deeply ingrained in the American psyche… SpaceX is only 12 years old now. Between now and 2040, the company’s lifespan will have tripled. If we have linear improvement in technology, as opposed to logarithmic, then we should have a significant base on Mars, perhaps with thousands or tens of thousands of people.”
**Background**
While humans have long thought of gods living in the sky, the idea of space travel or humans living in space dates to at least 1610 after the invention of the telescope when German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote to Italian astronomer Galileo: “Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travellers, maps of the celestial bodies.” [1]
In popular culture, space travel dates back to at least the mid-1600s when Cyrano de Bergerac first wrote of traveling to space in a rocket. Space fantasies flourished after Jules Verne’s “From Earth to the Moon” was published in 1865, and again when RKO Pictures released a film adaptation, A Trip to the Moon, in 1902. Dreams of space settlement hit a zenith in the 1950s with Walt Disney productions such as “Man and the Moon,” and science fiction novels including Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles (1950). [2] [3] [4]
Fueling popular imagination at the time was the American space race with Russia, amid which NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) was formed in the United States on July 29, 1958, when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law. After the Russians put the first person, Yuri Gagarin, in space on Apr. 12, 1961, NASA put the first people, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on the Moon in July 1969. What was science fiction began to look more like possibility. Over the next six decades, NASA would launch space stations, land rovers on Mars, and orbit Pluto and Jupiter, among other accomplishments. Launched by President Trump in 2017, NASA’s ongoing Artemis program intends to return humans to the Moon by 2024, landing the first woman on the lunar surface. The lunar launch is more likely to happen in 2025, due to a lag in space suit technology and delays with the Space Launch System rocket, the Orion capsule, and the lunar lander[5] [6] [7] [8] [36]
As of June 17, 2021, three countries had space programs with human space flight capabilities: China, Russia, and the United States. India’s planned human space flights have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they may launch in 2023. However, NASA ended its space shuttle program in 2011 when the shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 21. NASA astronauts going into space afterward rode along with Russians until 2020 when SpaceX took over and first launched NASA astronauts into space on Apr. 23, 2021. SpaceX is a commercial space travel business owned by Elon Musk that has ignited commercial space travel enthusiasm and the idea of “space tourism.” Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin have generated similar excitement. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
Richard Branson launched himself, two pilots, and three mission specialists into space from New Mexico for a 90-minute flight on the Virgin Galactic Unity 22 mission on July 11, 2021. The flight marked the first time that passengers, rather than astronauts, went into space. [14] [15]
Jeff Bezos followed on July 20, 2021, accompanied by his brother, Mark, and both the oldest and youngest people to go to space: 82-year-old Wally Funk, a female pilot who tested with NASA in the 1960s but never flew, and Oliver Daemen, an 18-year-old student from the Netherlands. The fully automated, unpiloted Blue Origin New Shepard rocket launched on the 52nd anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing and was named after Alan Shepard, who was the first American to travel into space on May 5, 1961. [16] [17]
On Apr. 8, 2022, a SpaceX capsule launched, carrying three paying customers and a former NASA astronaut on a roundtrip to the International Space Station (ISS). Mission AX-1 docked at the ISS on Apr. 9 with former NASA astronaut, current Axiom Space employee, and mission commander, Michael Lopez-Alegría, Israeli businessman Eytan Stibbe, Canadian investor Mark Pathy, and American real estate magnate Larry Connor. The group returned to Earth on Apr. 25, 2022. While this is not the first time paying customers or non-astronauts have traveled to ISS (Russia has sold Soyuz seats), this is the first American mission and the first with no government astronaut corps members. [38] [39]
The International Space Station has been continuously occupied by groups of six astronauts since Nov. 2000, for a total of 243 astronauts from 19 countries as of May 13, 2021. Astronauts spend an average of 182 days (about six months) aboard the ISS. As of Feb. 2020, Russian Valery Polyakov had spent the longest continuous time in space (437.7 days in 1994-1995 on space station Mir), followed by Russian Sergei Avdeyev (379.6 days in 1998-1999 on Mir), Russians Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov (365 days in 1987-1988 on Mir), American Mark Vande Hei (355 days on ISS) Russian Mikhail Kornienko and American Scott Kelly (340.4 days in 2015-2016 on Mir and ISS respectively), and American Christina Koch (328 days in 2019-20 in ISS). [18] [19] [40]
In Jan. 2022, Space Entertainment Enterprise (SEE) announced plans for a film production studio and a sports arena in space. The module will be named SEE-1 and will dock on Axiom Station, which is the commercial wing of the International Space Station. SEE plans to host film and sports events, as well as content creation by Dec. 2024. [37]
In a 2018 poll, 50% of Americans believed space tourism will be routine for ordinary people by 2068. 32% believed long-term habitable space colonies will be built by 2068. But 58% said they were definitely or probably not interested in going to space. And the majority (63%) stated NASA’s top priority should be monitoring Earth’s climate, while only 18% said sending astronauts to Mars should be the highest priority and only 13% would prioritize sending astronauts to the Moon. [20]
The most common ideas for space colonization include: settling Earth’s Moon, building on Mars, and constructing free-floating space stations.
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Character:
Constant scandals took Clinton’s focus off running the country. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment, he became the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his own conduct. An affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky culminated in Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives on Dec. 19, 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The only other president in US history to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868. Some blame Clinton’s moral shortcomings for disenfranchising Democratic Party members and Independents, and causing Al Gore to lose the 2000 presidential election.
**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…
|
# Homework Pros and Cons - Should Homework Be Banned?'
**Argument**
Too much homework can be harmful.
A poll of California high school students found that 59% thought they had too much homework. 82% of respondents said that they were “often or always stressed by schoolwork.” High-achieving high school students said too much homework leads to sleep deprivation and other health problems such as headaches, exhaustion, weight loss, and stomach problems.
Alfie Kohn, an education and parenting expert, said, “Kids should have a chance to just be kids… it’s absurd to insist that children must be engaged in constructive activities right up until their heads hit the pillow.”
Emmy Kang, a mental health counselor, explained, “More than half of students say that homework is their primary source of stress, and we know what stress can do on our bodies.”
Excessive homework can also lead to cheating: 90% of middle school students and 67% of high school students admit to copying someone else’s homework, and 43% of college students engaged in “unauthorized collaboration” on out-of-class assignments. Even parents take shortcuts on homework: 43% of those surveyed admitted to having completed a child’s assignment for 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]
|
# Should the Voting Age be Lowered in the US? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
The 18-29 age group has extremely low voter turnout numbers, suggesting that people aren't ready to vote until later in life.
Only 12.5% of 18-year-olds participated in the 2014 midterm election, compared to 42% of the general population. According to the United States Elections Project’s analysis of US Census Bureau data, just 16% of eligible voters ages 18-29 voted in the 2014 election, compared to 30% for ages 30-44, 43% for 45-59, and 55% for age 60 and up. Over the last 30 years, voter turnout for 18- to 29-year-olds has never exceeded 21% in a midterm election.
Only 23% of students scored at or above the “proficient” level on the last National Assessment of Educational Progress test of civics knowledge and skills.
David Davenport, JD, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said, “My concern is if 16-year-olds were allowed to vote on any kind of broad scale, what we’d actually be doing is bringing the least politically informed, the least politically experienced, the least mature in terms of making long-term judgments and trade-offs, directly into and potentially affecting our voter turnout and results.”
**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 Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
Tablets shift the focus of learning from the teacher to the technology.
This change marginalizes decades of learned wisdom in the teaching profession in favor of an unproven technology. According to education reformer Mike Schmoker, until the core elements of literacy and critical thinking are learned by every student, “it makes little sense to adopt or learn new programs, technology, or any other innovations.” Technology gets in the way and makes learning and teaching more burdensome.
**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…
|
# Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?'
**Argument**
The rate of global warming has slowed over the last decade even though atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.
The Heartland Institute’s 2013 NIPCC report stated that the earth “has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2.” According to Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Lindzen, PhD, the IPCC’s “excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the [climate] models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans”
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Defense:
Reagan strengthened the weak, ineffectual, and vulnerable military which Carter left behind. The Reagan administration funded research and development of weapons systems, including stealth technology and precision weaponry, later used in both Persian Gulf wars. Reagan’s largest peacetime defense buildup in history, which included larger training ranges and military pay increases, helped invigorate the American military from its Vietnam War-era despondency.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?'
**Argument**
Raising the minimum wage would reduce crime.
According to an Apr. 2016 study by the Executive Office of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, “higher wages for low-income individuals reduce crime by providing viable and sustainable employment… raising the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 would result in a 3 to 5 percent crime decrease (250,000 to 540,000 crimes) and a societal benefit of $8 to $17 billion dollars.” A 2013 study found that living wage ordinances “lead to modest reductions in expected robbery, burglary, larceny, and MVT [motor vehicle theft] rates.” Researchers who studied crime rates and the minimum wage in New York City over a 25-year period found that “[i]ncreases in the real minimum wage are found to significantly reduce robberies and murders… a 10 percent increase in the real minimum wage results in a 6.3 to 6.9 percent decrease in murders” and a 3.4 to 3.7 percent decrease in robberies.
**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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Withdrawing the “parsonage exemption” on ministers’ housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years, which would be a major blow to modestly paid men and women who dedicate their lives to helping people in need.
According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000. As stated by D. August Boto, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, “the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury.”
**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…
|
# Universal Basic Income Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
UBI leads to positive job growth and lower school dropout rates.
The guarantee of UBI protects people from sluggish wage growth, low wages, and the lack of job security caused by the effects of the growing gig economy such as Uber/Lyft driving and short-term contracts, as well as increased automation in the workplace.
Researchers from the Roosevelt Institute created three models for US implementation of UBI and found that under all scenarios, UBI would grow the economy by increasing output, employment, prices, and wages. Since implementation of the Alaska Permanent Fund, the increased purchasing power of UBI recipients has resulted in 10,000 additional jobs for the state.
UBI would also give employees the financial security to leave a bad job, or wait until the good job comes along to (re)join the job market. People won’t have to take an awful job just to pay the bills.
UBI also enables people to stay in school longer and participate in training to improve skills or learn a trade.
Uganda’s UBI trial, the Youth Opportunities Program, enabled participants to invest in skills training as well as tools and materials, resulting in an increase of business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%.
The Canadian Mincome trial in the 1970’s found that participants of the trial were more likely to complete high school than counterparts not involved in the trial.
The Basic Income Grant trial in Namibia (2007-2012) enabled parents to afford school fees, buy school uniforms, and encourage attendance. As a result, school dropout rates fell from almost 40% in Nov. 2007 to 5% in June 2008 to almost 0% in Nov. 2008.
**Background**
A universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status. [45]
Pilot UBI or more limited basic income programs that give a basic income to a smaller group of people instead of an entire population have taken place or are ongoing in Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Namibia, Spain, and The Netherlands as of Oct. 20, 2020 [46]
In the United States, the Alaska Permanent Fund (AFP), created in 1976, is funded by oil revenues. AFP provides dividends to permanent residents of the state. The amount varies each year based on the stock market and other factors, and has ranged from $331.29 (1984) to $2,072 (2015). The payout for 2020 was $992.00, the smallest check received since 2013.[46] [47] [48] [49]
UBI has been in American news mostly thanks to the 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang whose continued promotion of a UBI resulted in the formation of a nonprofit, Humanity Forward. [53]
|
# Mandatory National Service - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
A mandatory service program would be manipulated by the rich and unfairly harm others.
Wealthy people have been able to manipulate American institutions for decades, buying their way into elite universities and avoiding the military draft. A national service program would be similarly exploited. [
Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer at The Atlantic, said that compulsory service programs “will be gamed by the wealthy, the well-connected, the folks with the social capital to figure out how things work — and national service will be set up in a way that serves their ends and reflects their values and preferences.”
A period of mandatory service could be a hardship for families and communities that would lose their young people who are already performing service by contributing to the household income, babysitting for neighbors, or caring for sick relatives. Compulsory service would delay people’s entry into the workforce, resulting in significant lost earnings for some.
“Think of the aspiring athlete or entertainer who has only so many years in her prime, the talented coder who might have to pass up a big market opportunity or the young worker who cannot take a year off from helping to feed his family,” the Washington Post Editorial Board noted.
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Mandatory national service (also called compulsory service) is a requirement that people serve in the military or complete other works of service. Modern propositions for compulsory service envision that young Americans could join the military or do civilian projects such as teaching in low-income areas, helping care for the elderly, or maintaining infrastructure, among other ideas. [2]
Proposals in the United States to implement compulsory trace back to the 1800s. More recently, between 2003 and 2013, former US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) made five unsuccessful attempts to pass the Universal National Service Act, which would have required all people in the United States between ages 18 and 42 to either serve in the military or perform civilian service related to national defense. [1] [34]
The US military draft, created during the Civil War, is one type of mandatory national service. However, although all male US citizens ages 18 to 25 must register with the Selective Service, the United States has an all-volunteer army and hasn’t drafted men into the military since 1973 when around 2.2 million men were drafted into the military during the Vietnam War. [35] [36] [37]
Public opinion on mandatory national service is split: 49% favored one year of required service for young Americans in a 2017 poll, while 45% were opposed. Among adults ages 18 to 29, who would be required to complete the service, 39% were for the proposal and 57% were against. [3]
|
# Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?'
**Argument**
Drone strikes mostly kill low-value targets and create more terrorists.
Reuters reported that of the 500 “militants” the CIA believed it had killed with drones between 2008 and 2010, only 14 were “top-tier militant targets,” and 25 were “mid-to-high-level organizers” of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups. The CIA had killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than mid-to-high-level during that same period. [59] According to the New America Foundation, from 2004 to 2012 an estimated 49 “militant leaders” were killed in drone strikes, constituting “2% of all drone-related fatalities.”
Abdulghani Al-Iryani, senior researcher at the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies, noted many militants operating in Yemen are “people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight.” While Abdulrasheed Al-Faqih, Executive Director of Mwatana Organization for Human Rights, explained, “Incidents of civilian harm in Yemen continue to negatively affect the reputation of the United States in the country and push local communities to consider violence and revenge as the only solution to the harm they suffer.”
The number of Al Qaeda core members in the Arabian Peninsula grew from no more than 300 in 2009 when drone strikes resumed to at least 700 in 2012, resulting in an increase in terrorist attacks in the region. Both the “Underwear Bomber,” who tried to blow up an American airliner in 2009, and the “Times Square Bomber,” who tried to set off a car bomb in New York City in 2010, cited drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as motivators for the plots. David Rohde, who was held captive by the Taliban for eight months, stated, “the Taliban were able to garner recruits in their aftermath by exaggerating the number of civilian casualties.”
**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.
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media posts cannot be completely deleted and all information posted can have unintended consequences.
The Library of Congress has been archiving all public tweets from Twitter’s Mar. 2006 inception forward. Information about an affair posted on Facebook, for example, can lead to and be used against someone in divorce proceedings because the information, once posted, can never be completely deleted. 81% of members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) said that they have seen in a rise in the use of social media as evidence in divorce proceedings with Facebook being cited as the primary source in 66% of divorce cases.
**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 Voting Age be Lowered in the US? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Lowering the voting age to 16 increases voter turnout and develops lifelong voting habits.
The United States has one of the lowest voter turnout rates among developed countries. A person who votes in one election has a 13% greater probability of voting in a future election. Researchers say that people who participate in elections when they first reach voting age are likely to develop the habit of voting, and those who don’t are more likely to remain nonvoters.
16-year-olds are learning about government and civics in high school, and the structured environment would lead to higher turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds as teachers and parents help them overcome typical obstacles for first-time voters, such as the registration process and finding their polling places. By contrast, many 18-year-olds are in a time of transition, making them less likely to participate in elections.
Involving young people in voting can have a “trickle up” effect that mobilizes their parents and other adults in their households to vote, increasing the overall voter turnout rate. Turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds in Takoma Park, Maryland, the first US municipality to lower the voting age for local elections, was double that of eligible voters 18 and older.
**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 United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
Gold standards create periodic deflations and economic contractions that destabilize the economy.
Under a gold standard, economic growth can outpace growth in the money supply since more money cannot be created and circulated until more gold is first obtained to back it. When this happens deflation and economic contraction occurs. Between 1913 and 1971, when the United States was on some form of a gold standard, there were 12 years in which deflation occurred. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, “the length and depth of the deflation during the late 1920s and early 1930s strongly suggest a monetary origin, and the close correspondence… between deflation and nations’ adherence to the gold standard.” Since leaving the gold standard in 1971 there has only been one year (2009) in which any deflation occurred (-0.4%).
Between 1879 and 1933 the United States had financial panics in 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933. During the panic of 1933 alone 4,000 banks suspended operations. Many of these panics were exacerbated by contraction in the money supply caused by the gold standard (more money could not be printed without first acquiring additional gold to back it). Many economists contend that the gold standard played a role in preventing the United States from stabilizing the economy after the stock market crash of 1929, and prolonged the Great Depression. In 1933, when the United States went off the full domestic gold standard, the economy began to recover.
**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 eradicated smallpox and have nearly eradicated other diseases such as polio.
Children are no longer vaccinated against smallpox because the disease no longer exists due to vaccination. The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1948; the last case in the world was 1977 in Somalia. In the twentieth century, there were 16,316 deaths from polio and 29,004 deaths from smallpox yearly in the United States; in 2012 there were no reported cases of polio or smallpox. According to UNICEF, there were 500 cases of polio in 2014 worldwide (appearing only in three countries: Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan), down from 350,000 cases in 1988, thanks to vaccination programs. Diphtheria killed 21,053 people yearly, measles killed 530,217 people yearly, mumps killed 162,344 people yearly, rubella killed 47,745 people yearly, and Hib killed 20,000 people yearly in the twentieth century United States; by 2012 each of these diseases were decreased by 99% because of vaccinations.
**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 Adults Have the Right to Carry a Concealed Handgun?'
**Argument**
Concealed handguns deter crime.
In a landmark study that analyzed FBI crime data, John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, found that states that implemented shall-issue concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott calculated that 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies could have been prevented between 1977 and 1992 if concealed carry had been legal in every US state during that time period.
John Malcolm, JD, Vice President of the Institute for Constitutional Government, and Amy Swearer, JD, Visiting Legal Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, stated, “Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates dropped 16 percent and violent crime rates dropped 18 percent, even though the percentage of adults with concealed carry permits rose by 190 percent.” They continued, “Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop in murder and violent crime rates. Each percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate.”
**Background**
Carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have “unrestricted carry” and do not require permits.
Proponents of concealed carry say concealed carry deters crime, keeps individuals and the public safer, is protected by the Second Amendment, and protect women and minorities who can’t always rely on the police for protection.
Opponents of concealed carry say concealed carry increases crime, increases the chances of a confrontation becoming lethal, is not protected by the Second Amendment, and that public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Other:
Reagan helped to reduce inefficiencies in the federal bureaucracy. When Reagan took office, it took seven weeks to get a Social Security card and 43 days to get a passport. By the time he left office, both could be had in 10 days.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Is Social Media Good for Society?'
**Argument**
Social media offers a way for musicians and artists to build audiences even if they don’t have a corporate contract.
64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the “hit-maker” for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). Pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old. In 2016 at 22 years old, Bieber’s net worth was estimated at $200 million. The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event.
**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…
|
# Student Loan Debt Elimination - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Student loan forgiveness is an abuse of the loan system. People must be held responsible for their personal economic choices.
A 2020 survey found 46% of Americans believe student loan forgiveness is unfair to those who have paid off their loans, and 39% believe it unfair to those without loans.
Matthew Noyes, columnist at Lone Conservative, who noted the sacrifices he had to make to pay off his $27,000 in student loans, explained, “Taking out a loan is a choice, and personal responsibility shouldn’t be supplanted by taxpayer bailouts. ‘Canceling’ student loans means penalizing people like me for honoring my word and repaying the debt I chose to accept.”
Noyes states that the forgiveness debate is steeped in the idea that “people are entitled to a college education and other peoples’ hard work. It codifies in policy the idea that adults are not responsible for their own actions (i.e. taking on debt). In a free society, I am not entitled to a college education and neither is anyone else.”
Further, less than 20% of American adults have student loan debt. Is it fair to offer relief to people who over-stretched their financial capabilities to go to college and not those without student loans debt but who may still struggle financially?
**Background**
Student loan debt is frequently in the news as politicians debate solutions to the rising costs of college that lead to sometimes crippling amounts of debt. For those with outstanding student loans, such debt can be discharged in two ways: forgiveness and bankruptcy.
Americans owed a collective $1.71 trillion in student loan debt as of Dec. 2020, according to the Federal Reserve. By comparison, in Dec. 2010, Americans owed about $845 billion in student loan debt, which means student loan debt has increased by about 102% over the last ten years. [1] [2]
According to the US Department of Education, 42.9 million Americans held outstanding student loan debt at the end of 2020, or about 17% of the US adult population. 75% of students with school-loan debt went to 2- or 4-year colleges, and the remaining 25% also borrowed for graduate school. About 6% of people with school loan debt owe more than $100,000–this group accounts for about a third of all outstanding student loan debt and usually encompasses both college as well as graduate school expenses. Approximately 40% leave college with between $20,000 and $100,000 in outstanding student loans. About 25% leave college with less than $20,000 in debt, and 30% leave with no student loan debt. [3] [4]
The New York Federal Reserve reported that about 11% of student loan debt payments were either late or in default (270 or more days late) at the beginning of 2020. By all indications, this debt, and the late payments and defaults as well, will continue to rise as college costs outpace average incomes. [5] [6] [7]
By Nov. 2021, the Education Data Initiative estimated 43.2 million student borrowers owed an average of $39,351 each. [40]
Some have proposed that the US federal government forgive some or all existing student loan debt in order to relieve the financial pressure on individuals and the country. Student debt forgiveness proposals range from a discharge of $10,000 per borrower (which would forgive the entire debt bills held by about 15 million borrowers) to $50,000 per borrower (which would forgive the entire debt bills held by about 36 million borrowers) to plans that would forgive all outstanding student loan debt. Each plan would include forgiveness for those with late or in-default accounts, as well as partial debt forgiveness for many more borrowers. [8]
The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimated that, depending on details, over ten years college debt cancellation will cost between $300 billion for a one-time cancellation of $10,000 for borrowers earning under $125,000 per year and $980 billion for a one-time cancellation of $50,000 per borrower. [43]
Others have proposed making student loan debt easier to discharge through bankruptcy. Credit card debt, medical bills, auto loans, and even gambling debt can be canceled by declaring bankruptcy, but due to a 1976 federal law, discharging student loan debt is much more difficult. Private student loans have also been protected from discharge in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. According to the US Department of Education, people who declare Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy can have student loan debt canceled but only if a court finds there is evidence of “undue hardship.” Getting student loans discharged is so difficult and rare, however, that many lawyers advise clients not to try: less than 0.5% of students clear their debts through bankruptcy. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
In Mar. 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump paused federal student loan payments, interest accrual, and debt collection. Congress voted to keep the pause through Sep. 30, 2021, and Trump extended it again through January 2021. President Biden maintained the pause with several renewals after taking office. His latest freeze, announced on Apr. 6, 2022, will expire on Aug. 31, 2022. While some disagree with the continuation of payment, interest and collection pauses, others question why federal student loan debt can’t be canceled if the federal government can do without payments for almost three years. [41]
On Aug. 24, 2022, President Biden announced a short loan freeze through Dec. 31, 2022 as well as a cancellation of “up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, and up to $10,000 for other qualifying borrowers.” The White House stated about 43 million borrowers would qualify the cancellation, with 20 million borrowers qualifying to have their debt completely canceled. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimated that the debt cancellation portion of Biden’s Aug. 2022 plan will cost up to $519 billion, with other components, such as income-based repayment plans adding additional costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the plan will cost $400 billion over 30 years. [42] [44] [47]
|
# Should Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Teens are not knowledgeable enough to have access to OTC birth control pills.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated, “adolescents need special attention at every visit for contraceptive services, including comprehensive counseling about sexuality, sexually transmitted disease and emergency contraception.”
Some teens may mistakenly believe that they are at a lower risk of pregnancy just because they have access to OTC birth control, even though they may be taking it incorrectly. This lack of knowledge, combined with increased sexual activity due to mistaken confidence in the inability to get pregnant, could lead to more teen pregnancies.
Peter Arcidiacono, Professor of Economics at Duke University, and his co-authors found that “increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even when short run pregnancy rates fall” because teens take readily-available contraceptives for granted and are therefore more likely to ignore availability and have sex without contraceptive protection.
**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…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
College stress can lead to health problems and other negative consequences.
40.2% of college students reported feeling “frequently overwhelmed” in a 2012 survey about stress levels. According to the University of Florida’s Counseling & Wellness Center, “The competition for grades, the need to perform, relationships, fear of AIDS, career choice, and many other aspects of the college environment cause stress.” According to the Director of Student Health Services at Biola University, college stress can lead to “headaches, weight gain, chronic digestive disorders, fatigue, increases [in] blood pressure, insomnia, teeth grinding in sleep, general irritability, reoccurring feeling of hopelessness, depression and anxiety and low self-esteem.”
**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 Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
**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…
|
# Was Bill Clinton a Good President?'
**Argument**
Defense:
Clinton was unable to fulfill his campaign promise to repeal the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Faced with strong opposition from conservatives early in his presidency, Clinton settled on a compromise policy referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which allowed gays to serve in the military if they did not disclose their sexual orientation. Neither conservatives nor liberals were satisfied by the outcome.
**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 Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
Legalizing marijuana leads to more marijuana-related medical emergencies.
After retail marijuana stores opened in Colorado, emergency room visits related to marijuana shot up nearly 30% and hospitalizations related to marijuana rose 200%. “The emergency department has seen increased visits for primary care needs, breathing problems related to inhalation of marijuana, including asthma, bronchitis, upper respiratory tract infections, as well as psychiatric needs, accidental or intentional overdoses and, unfortunately, increased pediatric patients with issues related to marijuana,” said Dr. Karen Randall, an emergency room physician in Colorado.
People are used to the idea that a candy bar is a single serving size, but a candy bar with marijuana could have four or more times the recommended dose of THC, depending on the state’s regulations. People end up in the ER with anxiety attacks or psychotic-like symptoms from eating sweets infused with more marijuana than they were expecting–or, in some cases, not expecting at all.
Poison-control marijuana exposure cases for kids ages 9 and under increased more than five-fold in Colorado after legalization. NAS found “increased risk of unintentional cannabis overdose injuries among children” in legal marijuana states. The University of Colorado burn center reported a “substantial increase” in the number of marijuana-related burns after legalization.
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Crime:
On Oct. 2 1982, Reagan launched a “War on Drugs” that helped reduce the high rate of casual drug use lingering from the 1970s. He increased funding for the drug war from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $2.75 billion in 1986. Reagan also signed eight major Executive Orders related to crime and justice as well as five major crime bills: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Labor:
On Aug. 3, 1981, Reagan ordered 12,176 striking air traffic controllers (PATCO) back to their jobs, disregarding the workers’ complaints of stress, staff shortages, and outdated equipment. PATCO was one of the few unions that had endorsed Reagan in the 1980 election. Reagan repaid them by giving them only 48 hours to cancel the strike and banning them from federal service for life. The ban was not lifted until 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Should Churches (Including Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?'
**Argument**
American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish “megachurches” accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year.
US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri.
**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…
|
# Animal Dissection - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Dissection can encourage students to pursue careers in science.
Vicki Besack, a high school science teacher in Florida, said, “Dissection … is an amazing hands-on experience,” adding that it “has the power to cause a student to change how they think about science and possibly what they may pursue as a career. It gives them that ‘aha’ moment.”
Teachers report that students gain invaluable hands-on science experience from dissection, including putting on lab coats and gloves, handling scalpels, and looking at samples under microscopes. The entire process can spark inspiration and excitement.
Julianna Music, a former high school student, argued in favor of dissection in the classroom by stating, “Biology is the study of life, and dissection is crucial for the understanding of life; it is a hands-on way to learn and paves a pathway for students with dreams of careers in that field…. [I]t lays the foundation for possible discoveries in animal diseases and prepares young people to become future veterinarians.” One of Music’s classmates developed a desire to become an optometrist after dissecting a sheep eye in school.
**Background**
Dissecting a frog might be one of the most memorable school experiences for many students, whether they are enthusiastic participants, prefer lab time to lectures, or are conscientious objectors to dissection.
The use of animal dissection in education goes back as far as the 1500s when Belgian doctor Andreas Vesalius used the practice as an instructional method for his medical students. [1]
Animal dissections became part of American K-12 school curricula in the 1920s. About 75-80% of North American students will dissect an animal by the time they graduate high school. An estimated six to 12 million animals are dissected in American schools each year. In at least 21 states and DC, K-12 students have the legal option to request an alternate assignment to animal dissection. [2] [3] [27]
While frogs are the most common animal for K-12 students to dissect, students also encounter fetal pigs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, minks, birds, turtles, snakes, crayfish, perch, starfish, and earthworms, as well as grasshoppers and other insects. Sometimes students dissect parts of animals such as sheep lungs, cows’ eyes, and bull testicles. [2]
Are animal dissections in K-12 schools crucial learning opportunities that encourage science careers and make good use of dead animals? Or are animal dissections unnecessary experiments that promote environmental damage when ethical alternatives exist?
|
# Should Election Day Be a National Holiday? Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Making weekday elections a national holiday is a popular idea that would align the US with other countries.
Pew Research Center found that 71% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans support making Election Day a federal holiday. A survey showed that US adults would rather have a federal holiday on Election Day than on Christmas Eve, the Friday after Thanksgiving, or St. Patrick’s day.
The United States is out of step with the rest of the world: elections are held on weekends in 27 of the 36 OECD countries. Israel and South Korea make national elections a holiday to avoid economic hardship for voters. The result is voter turnout rates of 72.3% and 77.2% respectively, which is 26-32% higher than the United States. A holiday for elections sidesteps the issue of a weekend election, which could conflict with religious obligations.
Elections are federal holidays in Singapore, which, when combined with mandatory voting, resulted in a voter turnout of 93.6% for the 2015 election of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Countries such as France, Mexico, and India also observe federal holidays for elections.
**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?
|
# Corporal Punishment in K-12 Schools - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Corporal punishment is often chosen by students over suspension or detention.
When given the choice, students frequently choose corporal punishment because it is a quick punishment that doesn’t cause older children to miss class or other activities, or younger children to miss their valued time on the playground. The child’s education is not interrupted and make-up work is not required for missed class instruction.
Allison Collins, a high school senior at Robbinsville High School in North Carolina, stated she chose corporal punishment over in-school suspension when her phone rang in class. Her principal, David Matheson, stated, “Most kids will tell you that they choose the paddling so they don’t miss class.”
**Background**
Nineteen states legally permit corporal punishment in public schools, while 31 states ban the practice. [28][29] Corporal punishment is defined as a “physical punishment” and a “punishment that involves hitting someone.” In K-12 schools, corporal punishment is often spanking, with either a hand or paddle, or striking a student across his/her hand with a ruler or leather strap. More extreme instances, including the use of a chemical spray and Taser, have also been recorded by US schools. [2] [7]
In 2014, 94% of parents with children three to four years old reported that they had spanked their child within the past year, and 76% of men and 65% of women agreed with the statement, “a child sometimes needs a good spanking.” [9] The debate over corporal punishment, especially in schools, remains vigorous.
Nineteen states permit corporal punishment in public schools via law: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming [28] [31]
Thirty-one states and DC ban corporal punishment in public schools: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin [29] [31]
Three states with a ban on corporal punishment allow teachers to use “a reasonable degree of force” on a child who is creating a disturbance: Maine, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. [19][20][21]
70% of corporal punishment happens in five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas—with the latter two making up 35% of all cases. [8]
There is no federal ban or law regulating corporal punishment, but the practice is prohibited in the federal Head Start program. [4] In 1977, the US Supreme Court decision in Ingraham v. Wright found that corporal punishment was not cruel and unusual punishment and is, thus, allowed in schools. [4] No more recent federal court ruling has been made.
Data shows that more than 109,000 students (down from 163,333 in the 2011-2012 school year) were physically punished in more than 4,000 schools in 21 states during the 2013-2014 school year, including some students in states where the practice is banned. [4][12] Rural, low-income, black, male students were more likely to have experienced corporal punishment. [9] Children with disabilities also experience corporal punishment at higher rates than other students. [9]
Some school districts have very specific rules for the punishment. Central Parish in Louisiana states that three swats with a paddle “approximately 20 inches long, 4 inches wide, and not exceeding ¼ inch in thickness” is the appropriate punishment. [4] However, other districts do not offer guidance. Daryl Scoggin, the superintendent of the Tate County, Mississippi, school district stated: “It’s kind of like, I had it done to me, and so I knew what I needed to do. I guess it’s more that you learn by watching… We don’t practice on dummies or anything like that.” [4]
Internationally, 60 countries ban corporal punishment in all instances, including at home. [6] [30] Those countries include Japan and the Seychelles, both of which passed laws in 2020, and Sweden, which passed a ban in 1979. [30] Most countries ban corporal punishment in some instances. [6] According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, sixteen countries do not ban corporal punishment in any instances: Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Dominica, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Palestine, Tuvalu, and Tanzania. [30]
Should Corporal Punishment Be Used in K-12 Schools?
Pro 1
Corporal punishment is the appropriate discipline for certain children when used in moderation.
The negative effects of corporal punishment cited by critics are attached to prolonged and excessive use of the punishment. [25] Occasional use for serious behavioral issues is appropriate because time-out or taking away a toy may not work to correct behavior in a particularly willful or rambunctious child. [24] [25]
LaShaun Williams, founder of childcare group Sitter Circle, stated, “there are some children who like to push their limits. Those are the children who may require a pop. Knowing your child is the key to nailing down the most effective forms of discipline… [T]oday’s disrespectful youth have shown what happens when necessary spanking is forgone.” [24]
Read More
Pro 2
Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school.
Children are better able to make decisions about their behavior, exercise self-control, and be accountable for their actions when they understand the penalty they face for misbehaving is comparable to their actions. [24]
Harold Bennet, PhD, President and Dean of the Charles H. Mason Theological Seminary, stated, “children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments… in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.” [16]
Some experts state that corporal punishment prevents children from persisting in their bad behavior and growing up to be criminals. [27]
Read More
Pro 3
Corporal punishment is often chosen by students over suspension or detention.
When given the choice, students frequently choose corporal punishment because it is a quick punishment that doesn’t cause older children to miss class or other activities, or younger children to miss their valued time on the playground. [26] The child’s education is not interrupted and make-up work is not required for missed class instruction.
Allison Collins, a high school senior at Robbinsville High School in North Carolina, stated she chose corporal punishment over in-school suspension when her phone rang in class. [26] Her principal, David Matheson, stated, “Most kids will tell you that they choose the paddling so they don’t miss class.” [26]
Read More
Con 1
Corporal punishment can inflict long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.
A Dec. 2016 study found that children who were physically punished were more likely to have problems with aggression and attention. [15] [17] [18]
Studies have shown that frequent use of corporal punishment leads to a higher risk for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, stress, and other mental health concerns. [17] [18] Children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to relate forms of violence with power, and are, therefore, more likely to be a bully or abuse a partner. [17] [18]
Read More
Con 2
Corporal punishment creates an unsafe and violent school environment.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says corporal punishment “may contribute to disruptive and violent student behavior.” [11]
Children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to hit or use other violence against people in order to get their way, putting other children at risk for increased bullying and physical abuse and teachers in potentially violent classrooms. [17][18]
The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry stated, “[c]orporal punishment signals to the child that a way to settle interpersonal conflicts is to use physical force and inflict pain. Such children may in turn resort to such behavior themselves.” [10]
Read More
Con 3
Corporal punishment is an inappropriate punishment that harms the education of children.
Corporal punishment has been banned in US prisons and military training, and animals are protected from the same sort of punishment in every state. [14]
Students who experience corporal punishment in kindergarten are more likely to have lower vocabulary scores in fourth grade and lower fifth grade math scores. [17]
According to the National Women’s Law Center, “Harsh physical punishments do not improve students’ in-school behavior or academic performance. In fact… schools in states where corporal punishment is used perform worse on national academic assessments than schools in states that prohibit corporal punishment.” [14]
Read More
Discussion Questions
Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools? Why or why not?Should federal laws about the use of corporal punishment be established? Why or why not?Should corporal punishment be allowed in certain circumstances? Which situations? Why or why not?
Take Action
1. Evaluate an opinion article about reinstating corporal punishment in California.
2. Learn about the laws governing corporal punishment in the United States.
3. Consider the Southern Poverty Law Center and the UCLA Center for Civil Rights Remedies report on corporal punishment inequities.
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Education Week, "Is Corporal Punishment an Option in Your State?," edweek.org, Aug. 23, 2016
2.Merriam-Webster, "Corporal Punishment," merriam-webster.com (accessed Apr. 10, 2017)
3.Russell Wilson, "Bill Would Finally, Fully Ban Corporal Punishment in Maine Schools," mainebeacon.com, Mar. 1, 2017
4.Sarah D. Sparks and Alex Harwin, "Corporal Punishment Use Found in Schools in 21 States," edweek.org, Aug. 23, 2016
5.Tim Walker, "Why Are 19 States Still Allowing Corporal Punishment in Schools?," neatoday.org, Oct. 17, 2016
6.Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, Interactive Map, endcorporalpunishment.org (accessed Apr. 10, 2017)
7.PBS NewsHour, "Assessing Whether Corporal Punishment Helps Students, or Hurts Them," pbs.org, Aug. 23, 2016
8.Melinda D. Anderson, "Where Teachers Are Still Allowed to Spank Students," theatlantic.com, Dec. 15, 2015
9.Child Trends, "Attitudes toward Spanking," childtrends.org, Nov. 2015
10.American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "Corporal Punishment in Schools," aacap.org, Sep. 2014
11.American Academy of Pediatrics, "Corporal Punishment in Schools," Pediatrics, Aug. 2000
12.Donna St. George, "Parents Allege Corporal Punishment at Blue Ribbon School in Maryland," washingtonpost.com, Dec. 6, 2015
13.John B. King, Jr., Letter to States Calling for an End to Corporal Punishment in Schools, ed.gov, Nov. 22, 2016
14.National Women’s Law Center, "An Open Letter to End Corporal Punishment in Schools," nwlc.org, Nov. 21, 2016
15.Romeo Vitelli, "Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child?," psychologytoday.com, Jan. 18, 2017
16.NPR, "Does Sparing the Rod Spoil the Child?," npr.org, June 19, 2012
17.Emily Cuddy and Richard V. Reeves, "Hitting Kids: American Parenting and Physical Punishment," brookings.edu, Nov. 6, 2014
18.Catherine A. Taylor, Jennifer A. Manganello, Shawna J. Lee, and Janet C. Rice, "Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior," Pediatrics, May 2010
19.FindLaw, "South Dakota Corporal Punishment in Public Schools Law," findlaw.com (accessed Apr. 11, 2017)
20.FindLaw, "New Hampshire Corporal Punishment in Public Schools Law," findlaw.com (accessed Apr. 11, 2017)
21.Russell Wilson, "Bill Would Finally, Fully Ban Corporal Punishment in Maine Schools," mainebeacon.com, Mar. 1, 2017
22.Brian Eason, "Bill Would Ban Corporal Punishment in Colorado Public Schools," denverpost.com, Jan. 23, 2017
23.Nicholas Garcia, "Corporal Punishment Bill Goes Down in Colorado Senate Committee," denverpost.com, Mar. 13, 2017
24.L. Nicole Williams, "8 Reasons to Spank Your Kids," madamenoire.com, Feb. 8, 2011
25.Okey Chigbo, "Disciplinary Spanking Is Not Child Abuse," Child Abuse, 2004
26.Jess Clark, "Where Corporal Punishment Is Still Used in Schools, It's Roots Run Deep," npr.org, Apr. 12, 2017
27.Walter E. Williams, "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment," questia.com, Sep. 13, 1999
28.Christina Caron, "In 19 States, It's Still Legal to Spank Children in Public Schools," nytimes.com, Dec. 13, 2018
29.Elizabeth T. Gershoff and Sarah A. Font, "Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy," Social Policy Report, 2016
30Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, "Global Progress," endcorporalpunishment.org (accessed Nov. 2, 2020)
31.Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, "Country Report for the USA: State-by State Analysis of the Legality of Corporal Punishment in the US," endcorporalpunishment.org, Mar. 2020
More School Debates
Is Homework Beneficial? – Proponents say homework improves student achievement. Opponents say too much homework is harmful to students.
Should K-12 Students Dissect Animals in Science Classrooms? – Proponents say dissecting real animals is a better learning experience. Opponents say the practice is bad for the environment.
Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms? – Proponents say uniforms may increase student safety. Opponents say uniforms restrict expression.
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?'
**Argument**
Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety.
American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, so product safety is of great importance. The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests on cosmetics to “assure the safety of a product or ingredient.” China requires that most cosmetics be tested on animals before they go on sale, so cosmetics companies must have their products tested on animals if they want distribution in one of the largest markets in the world. Manufacturers of products such as hand sanitizer and insect repellent, which can protect people from Zika, malaria, and West Nile Virus, test on animals to meet legal requirements for putting these products on the market.
**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…
|
# Universal Basic Income Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against'
**Argument**
UBI is too expensive.
A 2018 study found that a $1,000 a month stipend to every adult in the United States would cost about $3.81 trillion per year, or about 21% of the 2018 GDP, or about 78% of 2018 tax revenue.
A $2,000 a month per head of household UBI would cost an estimated $2.275 trillion annually, says Marc Joffe, MBA, MPA, Director of Policy Research at the California Policy Center. Some of this cost could be offset by eliminating federal, state, and local assistance programs; however, by Joffe’s calculation, “these offsets total only $810 billion… [leaving] a net budgetary cost of over $1.4 trillion for a universal basic income program.”
The UBI trial in Finland provided participants with €560 ($673 USD) a month for two years. [21] lkka Kaukoranta, MS, Chief Economist of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), says that Finland’s UBI model is “impossibly expensive, since it would increase the government deficit by about 5 percent [of GDP].”
In a Sep. 14, 2016 parliamentary debate, UK Minister for Employment, Damian Hinds, rejected the idea of UBI, saying that estimated implementation costs ranging from £8.2 billion – £160 billion ($10.8 billion – $211 billion USD) are “clearly unaffordable.”
Economist John Kay, Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, studied proposed UBI levels in Finland, France, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, and concluded that, in all of these countries, UBI at a level which can guarantee an acceptable standard of living is “impossibly expensive… Either the level of basic income is unacceptably low, or the cost of providing it is unacceptably high.”
**Background**
A universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status. [45]
Pilot UBI or more limited basic income programs that give a basic income to a smaller group of people instead of an entire population have taken place or are ongoing in Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Namibia, Spain, and The Netherlands as of Oct. 20, 2020 [46]
In the United States, the Alaska Permanent Fund (AFP), created in 1976, is funded by oil revenues. AFP provides dividends to permanent residents of the state. The amount varies each year based on the stock market and other factors, and has ranged from $331.29 (1984) to $2,072 (2015). The payout for 2020 was $992.00, the smallest check received since 2013.[46] [47] [48] [49]
UBI has been in American news mostly thanks to the 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang whose continued promotion of a UBI resulted in the formation of a nonprofit, Humanity Forward. [53]
|
# Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?'
**Argument**
The government doesn’t have the right to tell adults what they can put in their own bodies.
David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, said, “people have the right to live their lives in any way they choose so long as they don’t violate the equal rights of others. What right could be more basic, more inherent in human nature, than the right to choose what substances to put in one’s own body?” More than 3,500 people die from drowning every year in the United States, but the government wouldn’t arrest people for owning swimming pools. Over 30,000 people are killed annually in car accidents, but the government doesn’t outlaw driving. Adults should be allowed to make adult decisions about how they choose to relax or have fun without government interference, especially when they’re not hurting anyone.
US Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) said, “There is no doubt in my mind that the federal government should not be in the marijuana prohibition business… From every perspective—a libertarian perspective, fiscal conservative’s perspective, Christian evangelical perspective, progressive perspective—marijuana prohibition is just wrong.”
**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…
|
# Net Neutrality - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Net neutrality promotes competition by providing a level playing field for new companies.
According to former Internet Association President & CEO Michael Beckerman, “without net neutrality protections, startups would face discrimination from ISP owned or preferred content that’s granted a speed advantage through paid prioritization,” thus hurting competition and consumer choice.
When the FCC implemented net neutrality rules in 2015, it warned “that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary” to “degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t like.”
According to Ryan Singel, Fellow at the the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, without net neutrality “broadband providers will be allowed to charge all websites and services, including startups, simply to reach an ISP’s subscribers. That’s a huge threat to the low cost of starting a company, and it totally up-ends the economics of the internet.”
A group of over 1,000 startup companies, innovators, and investors signed a petition to the FCC stating that “the success of America’s startup ecosystem depends… on an open Internet—including enforceable net neutrality rules.” Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai, MBA, said net neutrality principles must be protected “for the next set of entrepreneurs, building their services and trying to reach users.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
The net neutrality rules adopted in 2015 under the Obama administration regulated the internet as a common carrier, the same category as telephone service, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, slowing, prioritizing, or charging consumers extra money to access certain websites. For example, under net neutrality rules, Verizon could not speed up access to websites it owns, such as Yahoo and AOL, and could not slow down traffic, or charge extra fees, to other major websites like Google or YouTube. [5] [4]
On Dec. 14, 2017, under the Trump administration, the FCC voted (3-2) to overturn those net neutrality rules and reclassified internet service as an information source, rather than a common carrier. [1] [5]
Many state attorneys general filed suit against the FCC decision. The US Senate voted 52-47 to approve a resolution to invalidate the decision, however the legislation fell short by 46 votes in the US House of Representatives. The FCC’s removal of net neutrality rules was officially implemented on June 11, 2018. [6] [25] [26] [34]
In Sep. 2018, California passed a net neutrality law and was immediately sued by the Trump Administration Justice Department. On Feb. 8, 2021, the Biden administration Justice Department withdrew the lawsuit against California, and FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel indicated support for reinstating net neutrality rules. [35] [36]
According to the National Law Review, as of Mar. 1, 2021, “seven states have adopted net neutrality laws (California, Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington), and several other states have introduced some form of net neutrality legislation in the 2021 legislative session (among them Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, and South Carolina).” [37]
Should the US Have Net Neutrality Laws?
Pro 1
Net neutrality preserves free speech on the internet by prohibiting internet service providers from blocking content.
ISPs may slow or block websites that disagree with the companies’ political viewpoints or interfere with their monetary interests. [2][7]
In 2017, then FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, JD, stated that the removal of net neutrality rules will give ISPs “extraordinary new power” and allow them “to censor online content.” [8]
According to the 2014 D.C. Circuit court ruling, Verizon v. FCC, the power of ISPs to censor content is not “merely theoretical.” Before net neutrality was in place, instances of content censorship actually occurred, including two separate instances of broadband ISPs blocking access to voice over IP applications, and one instance of an ISP blocking an online payment service. [15]
In 2014, President Obama stated that “an open Internet… has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known,” and that if content is legal your ISP should not be allowed to block it. [33]
The Electronic Freedom Foundation has argued that, “the meaningful exercise of our constitutional rights—including the freedoms of speech, assembly, and press—has become dependent on broadband Internet access.” This dependency makes net neutrality rules essential for a free society. [16]
Read More
Pro 2
Net neutrality protects consumers by preventing ISPs from speeding, slowing, or charging higher fees for select online content.
Allowing ISPs to speed or slow certain websites, or charge fees for fast lane access, may eventually trickle down to consumers in the form of higher internet costs. For example, a person who gets their internet service from Comcast could be charged extra fees to stream Netflix or Amazon (companies not owned by Comcast), while not being charged extra to stream NBC or Hulu (two companies that Comcast partially owns). [21]
According to US Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA), without net neutrality, ISPs could “cabel-ize” the internet, meaning that “instead of paying a flat price for access to use any app or service free of charge, companies could start bundling services into ‘social,’ ‘video,’ and so on,” and consumers will have to pay for it. [23]
On Apr. 27, 2017, one day after then FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, JD, announced the plan to eliminate net neutrality, Comcast (the largest US ISP) removed its pledge to not “prioritize internet traffic or create paid fast lanes” from its corporate website. [20][11]
Read More
Pro 3
Net neutrality promotes competition by providing a level playing field for new companies.
According to former Internet Association President & CEO Michael Beckerman, “without net neutrality protections, startups would face discrimination from ISP owned or preferred content that’s granted a speed advantage through paid prioritization,” thus hurting competition and consumer choice. [18][29]
When the FCC implemented net neutrality rules in 2015, it warned “that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary” to “degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t like.” [27]
According to Ryan Singel, Fellow at the the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, without net neutrality “broadband providers will be allowed to charge all websites and services, including startups, simply to reach an ISP’s subscribers. That’s a huge threat to the low cost of starting a company, and it totally up-ends the economics of the internet.” [17]
A group of over 1,000 startup companies, innovators, and investors signed a petition to the FCC stating that “the success of America’s startup ecosystem depends… on an open Internet—including enforceable net neutrality rules.” [19] Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai, MBA, said net neutrality principles must be protected “for the next set of entrepreneurs, building their services and trying to reach users.” [24]
Read More
Con 1
Net neutrality regulations are unnecessary because the internet developed amazingly well in their absence.
Most large internet companies including Google (1998), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and Twitter (2006) were started and grew to success without net neutrality regulations.
According to former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, JD, “the internet wasn’t broken in 2015,” when net neutrality was implemented and “it certainly wasn’t heavy-handed government regulation” that was responsible for the “phenomenal development of the internet.” [9]
As former FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly stated, “periods without net neutrality rules were times of innovation and investment.” [12]
According to economist John W. Mayo, PhD, the entire rationale for net neutrality ignores the “positive economic outcomes in the provision of internet services that resulted from twenty years of light-touch regulation.” [32]
As economist Gerald R. Faulhaber, PhD, argued: “we have had a decade of experience with broadband ISPs with little evidence of wrongdoing.” [3]
A 2017 statement from the Internet & Television Association, signed by 21 large ISPs, stated they remain “committed to an open internet” and “will not block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity,” once net neutrality regulations are removed. [14]
Read More
Con 2
Net neutrality created burdensome and overreaching regulations to govern the internet.
According to the bipartisan Telecommunications Act of 1996, “the Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation,” and it should be the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market… for the Internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” [32]
In 2017, the FCC reported that neutrality rules imposed significant and “unnecessary” reporting burdens on ISPs to prove they were in compliance. For example, the ISP CenturyLink estimated that meeting the net neutrality rules created over 5,000 hours of extra paperwork, costing over $134,000 each year. [10]
In addition to being burdensome for ISPs, net neutrality regulations exceed the FCC’s authority. According to the editors of the National Review, the net neutrality rules exceeded “the agency’s statutory mandate,” and “there is no title or provision in the Federal Communication Act that gives the agency a clear mandate to impose pricing and content-management rules on Internet providers, which is what net neutrality does.” [31]
Read More
Con 3
Net neutrality reduces investment in internet services resulting in less access and higher costs for consumers.
Between 2011 and 2015, when neutrality rules were being debated by the FCC, the mere threat of implementing them reduced ISPs investments in network upgrades by 20-30%, a $150-$200 billion reduction in investment. [13]
During the years that net neutrality rules were in place (2015-2017), investment in broadband fell for the first time ever in a non-recession period. [10][28]
According to AT&T, that “chilled investment in broadband,” threatened “to slow the delivery of broadband services to all Americans… particularly in rural America where broadband investment is needed the most.” [30]
Net neutrality regulations also prevent ISPs from charging large content companies (such as video streaming services) additional fees to cover the costs of the massive bandwidth they use. Preventing such paid prioritization fees places the costs of building the additional capacity necessary to carry the content onto ISPs, and these costs will trickle down to consumers in the form of more expensive internet packages – which are paid by all, even those who don’t use the streaming services. [22]
Read More
Discussion Questions
1. Should the United States have federal net neutrality laws? Why or why not?
2. Do net neutrality regulations protect consumers? Explain your answer(s).
3. Do net neutrality regulations unfairly limit internet companies?
Take Action
1. Explore Kevin Taglang’s position that the internet needs net neutrality protections.
2. Consider which states have enacted (or considered enacting) net neutrality legislation according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
3. Analyze Ken Engelhart’s position that net neutrality laws are not needed because the internet is “inherently neutral.”
4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources
1.Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Acts to Restore Internet Freedom,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
2.American Civil Liberties Union, “What Is Net Neutrality?,” aclu.org, Dec. 2017
3.Gerald R. Faulhaber, “Economics of Net Neutrality: A Review,” Communications & Convergence Review, 2011
4.Brian Fung, “The FCC Just Voted to Repeal Its Net Neutrality Rules, in a Sweeping Act of Deregulation,” washingtonpost.com, Dec. 14, 2017
5.Steve Lohr, “Net Neutrality Repeal: What Could Happen and How It Could Affect You,” nytimes.com, Nov. 21, 2017
6.David Shepardson, “21 States Sue to Keep Net Neutrality as Senate Democrats Reach 50 Votes,” reuters.com, Jan. 16, 2018
7.Roni Jacobson, “Internet Censorship Is Advancing under Trump,” wired.com, Apr. 12, 2017
8.Jessica Rosenworcel, “Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
9.Ajit Pai, “Oral Statement of Chairman Ajit Pai,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
10.Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Fact Sheet: Restoring Internet Freedom Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order – WC Docket No. 17-108,” apps.fcc.gov, Nov. 2, 2017
11.Jon Brodkin, “Comcast Deleted Net Neutrality Pledge Same Day FCC Announced Repeal,” arstechnica.com, Nov. 29, 2017
12.Michael O’Rielly, “Oral Statement of Commissioner Michael O’Reilly,” fcc.gov, Dec. 14, 2017
13.George S. Ford, “Net Neutrality, Reclassification and Investment: A Counterfactual Analysis,” Perspectives, Apr. 25, 2017
14.NCTA, “Reaffirming Our Commitment to an Open Internet,” ncta.com, May 17, 2017
15.Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, cadc.uscorts.gov, Jan. 14, 2014
16.Electronic Freedom Foundation, “Comments of the Electronic Freedom Foundation on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” eff.org, July 17, 2017
17.Ryan Singel, “Expect Fewer Great Startups if the FCC Kills Net Neutrality,” wired.com, Dec. 12, 2017
18.Internet Association, “Internet Association Files With FCC and Calls For Net Neutrality Rules to Be Kept in Place,” internetassociation.org, July 17, 2017
19.Startups for Net Neutrality, Letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, engine.is, Apr. 26, 2017
20.Ajit Pai, “Remarks of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai at the Newseum: The Future of Internet Freedom,” fcc.gov, Apr. 26, 2017
21.Steve Kovach, “The FCC Plans to Repeal Net Neutrality This Week – and It Could Ruin the Internet,” businessinsider.com, Dec. 10, 2017
22.Jim Cicconi, “Who Should Pay for Netflix?,” attpublicpolicy.com, Mar. 21, 2014
23.Anna G. Eshoo, “Net Neutrality Repeal Means You’re Going to Hate Your Cable Company Even More,” usatoday.com, Dec. 12, 2017
24.Jordan Malter, “Google CEO: Net Neutrality ‘A Principle We All Need to Fight For,'” money.cnn.com, Jan. 24, 2018
25.Bill Chappell and Susan Davis, “Senate Approves Overturning FCC’s Net Neutrality Repeal,” npr.org, May 16, 2018
26.Erin Carson and Marguerite Reardon, “Net Neutrality Rules Will End June 11th with the FCC’s Final Say-So,” cnet.com, May 10, 2018
27.Federal Communications Commission, “Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order,” transition.fcc.gov, Mar. 12, 2015
28.Hal Singer, “Bad Bet by FCC Sparks Capital Flight from Broadband,” forbes.com, Mar. 2, 2017
29.Internet Association, “Principles to Preserve & Protect an Open Internet,” internetassociation.org (accessed May 23, 2018)
30.AT&T, “Open Internet,” about.att.com (accessed May 10, 2018)
31.National Review, “Net Neutrality: Let Congress Decide if It’s Needed,” nationalreview.com, Nov. 11, 2017
32.John W. Mayo, et al., “An Economic Perspective of Title II Regulation of the Internet,” cbpp.georgetown.edu, July 2017
33.The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on Net Neutrality,” obamawhitehouse.archives.gov, Nov. 10, 2014
34.Jon Brodkin, "Bill to Save Net NeutralityIis 46 Votes Short in US House," arstechnica.com, June 27, 2018
35.Cecilia Kang, "Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law," nytimes.com, Sep. 30, 2018
36.Federal Communications Commission, "Statement of Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel on Department of Justice Decision to Withdraw Lawsuit to Block California Net Neutrality Law," docs.fcc.gov, Feb. 8, 2021
37.National Law Review, "State Net Neutrality Laws May Lead to Federal Legislation," natlawreview.com, Mar. 1, 2021
window.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',function(){var e,t=document.getElementById("procon-page-data"),n=!!t&&JSON.parse(atob(t.innerHTML));n&&n.site&&n.site.theme_uri&&((e=document.createElement("script")).async=!0,e.src=n.site.theme_uri+"js/spot-im-recirculation-and-conversation.min.js?v=1593750185",document.body.appendChild(e))});
.spcv_community-question{font-size:18px;min-height:50px;padding:20px 15px}
|
# Kneeling during the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
When a national figure such as an NFL player kneels during the national anthem, it shocks people into paying attention and generates conversation.
Many people were shocked and offended when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and the resulting debate has continued as additional players joined the protest.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell originally disagreed with those actions, but later praised what he called a movement from protest to progress: “I truly respect our players wanting to speak out and change the community… We want them to use that voice.”
Social media has given a voice to strong opinions on both sides, including members of the armed forces who express support Kaepernick’s right to protest by posting under the hashtag #VeteransForKaepernick.
**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?“
|
# Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?'
**Argument**
Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed.
Many studies failed to control for factors that contribute to children becoming violent, such as family history and mental health, plus most studies do not follow children over long periods of time.
Video game experiments often have people playing a game for as little as ten minutes, which is not representative of how games are played in real life. In many laboratory studies, especially those involving children, researchers must use artificial measures of violence and aggression that do not translate to real-world violence and aggression, such as whether someone would force another person eat hot sauce or listen to unpleasant noises.
According to Christopher J. Ferguson, PhD, a psychology professor at Stetson University, “matching video game conditions more carefully in experimental studies with how they are played in real life makes VVG’s [violent video games] effects on aggression essentially vanish.”
**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…
|
# Dakota Access Pipeline Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
The Dakota Access Pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux and millions of people downstream.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was originally slated to cross under the Missouri river north of Bismarck, the state’s capital. However, DAPL was re-routed south of the city, half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, due to concerns that a pipeline break could poison the city’s water source. A pipeline spill would imperil the drinking water of not just the Standing Rock Tribe, but also millions of people downstream. The construction of the pipeline was fast-tracked using a process called Nationwide Permit No. 12, exempting it from environmental reviews required by the Clean Water Act, adding further concerns about the safety of the pipeline.
**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 the United States Return to a Gold Standard?'
**Argument**
A gold standard would increase the environmental and cultural harms created by gold mining.
In the first quarter of 2019, mining one ounce of gold cost $1,000. The average wedding band contains three to seven ounces of gold.
All the human labor used for mining, refining, and storing gold is time and energy diverted from the real economy. The direct costs associated with a fiat paper money system (paper and printing costs) are much lower because a paper bill only costs between 7.7 and 19.6 cents in Apr. 2020.
Returning to a gold standard would create increased demand for gold and mining activity would increase. Many gold mines use a process called cyanide leach mining that creates large-scale water pollution and massive open-pit scars on the land. Producing one ounce of gold creates 79 tons of mine waste.
Further, nearly 50% of global gold mining occurs on indigenous lands, where the communities’ land rights are often violated. In Brazil, the Yanomami, a tribe of about 26,700 people who remain relatively isolated, are being threatened by illegal gold mining on their reservation in the Amazon rainforest. In addition to forest destruction and poisoned rivers, the Yanomami saw two of their communities wiped out by the flu and measles brought in by illegal gold mining operations in the 1970s. In 2020, COVID-19 was brought by miners.
**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…
|
# Dress Codes - Top 3 Pros and Cons | ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Dress codes enforce decorum and a serious, professional atmosphere conducive to success.
Research shows that the quality of work improves when performed by individuals who dress up. One study found that participants who wore formal business attire (such as suits) scored higher on cognitive tests, with specific increases in abstract thinking.
Another study compared negotiations completed by a group who dressed up and another group who dressed casually. The dressed-up group closed more profitable deals.
Study participants who wore a white lab coat or who were told a white coat was a doctor’s coat made 50% fewer mistakes on high-concentration tasks than people who did not wear a lab coat or who were told the white coat was an artists’ smock.
High school athletes at St. Louis Park High School in Minnesota agreed that their teams’ dress code days (which include dressing up on game days) positively contributed to team unity. Brendan Donahue, a hockey player, said participating in dress code days better prepared him for games. He stated, “The dress codes add a further feeling of connection, teamwork and bond by wearing the same thing. It acts as a uniform much like our jerseys. Our dress code of dressing up adds a feeling of professionalism to our team and sport.”
**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 Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Contrary to public perception, tenure does not guarantee a teacher a job for life.
Each state’s tenure laws establish strict requirements and processes for removing a tenured teacher. Tenure also guarantees teachers a termination hearing before the board of education or an impartial hearing panel.
**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…
|
# Was Ronald Reagan a Good President?'
**Argument**
Social Policy:
Reagan believed that widespread freeloading plagued welfare and social programs. As Reagan slashed spending in his first term on programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing, the poverty rate climbed from 12% to 15% and unemployment rose from 7% to 11%.
**Background**
Ronald Wilson Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from Jan. 20, 1981 to Jan. 19, 1989. He won the Nov. 4, 1980 presidential election, beating Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter with 50.7% of the votes, and won his second term by a landslide of 58.8% of the votes.
Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.
His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment. Read more background…
|
# Mandatory National Service - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org'
**Argument**
Mandatory national service would foster unity and bring people from diverse backgrounds together.
Pew Research tracked an increase in partisan differences from 15 percentage points in 1994 to 36 points in 2017.
Dan Glickman, JD, former US Representative (D-KS), stated that mandatory service would be a solution to our “current dysfunction” because “National service, be it in the military, Peace Corps, or other public or private sector opportunities, breaks down the barriers of race, class, income, geography, and even language. Young adults are granted the opportunity to see their peers and fellow Americans as a member of their team.”
Around 30 countries have compulsory military service. Switzerland, which has four official languages and three major ethnic groups, bridges its divides with a mandatory national service program. The European nation is identified as one of the happiest countries in the world by the United Nations.
Gene Yaw, JD, Pennsylvania State Senator (R), recommended a two-year universal public service requirement to promote civility and understanding of what it means to be an American: “We cannot generate enthusiasm for our way of life when less than 2% of our population has put forth any effort for our country.”
**Background**
OverviewPro/Con ArgumentsDiscussion QuestionsTake Action
Mandatory national service (also called compulsory service) is a requirement that people serve in the military or complete other works of service. Modern propositions for compulsory service envision that young Americans could join the military or do civilian projects such as teaching in low-income areas, helping care for the elderly, or maintaining infrastructure, among other ideas. [2]
Proposals in the United States to implement compulsory trace back to the 1800s. More recently, between 2003 and 2013, former US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) made five unsuccessful attempts to pass the Universal National Service Act, which would have required all people in the United States between ages 18 and 42 to either serve in the military or perform civilian service related to national defense. [1] [34]
The US military draft, created during the Civil War, is one type of mandatory national service. However, although all male US citizens ages 18 to 25 must register with the Selective Service, the United States has an all-volunteer army and hasn’t drafted men into the military since 1973 when around 2.2 million men were drafted into the military during the Vietnam War. [35] [36] [37]
Public opinion on mandatory national service is split: 49% favored one year of required service for young Americans in a 2017 poll, while 45% were opposed. Among adults ages 18 to 29, who would be required to complete the service, 39% were for the proposal and 57% were against. [3]
|
# Cancel Culture Top 3 Pros and Cons'
**Argument**
Cancel culture is simply a new form of boycott, a cherished tactic in the civil rights movement, to bring about social change.
Lisa Nakamura, PhD, Professor and Director of the Digital Studies Institute at the University of Michigan, states that cancel culture is “a cultural boycott. It’s an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.” She elaborates, “Socially irredeemable things are said on platforms all the time” but cancellation provides “a culture of accountability which is not centralized and is haphazard, but needed to come into being.”
Hudley, states simply, “If you don’t have the ability to stop something through political means, what you can do is refuse to participate.” Boycotts have long been associated with civil rights movements with the most famous, perhaps, being the Montgomery Bus boycott began in 1955 after Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of an Alabama bus.
Craig Jenkins, Vulture Music Critic, refers to cancel culture as “a redrawing of the balance of power between brands and consumers — a necessary one, I think. I’m thrilled the brands are scared to death of saying the wrong thing for once.”
Jenkins’ colleague, Senior Writer, E. Alex Jung responded, “Accountability is a really good way to frame it. It’s actually asking, well, if Amazon is suddenly going to uproot systemic racism (lol), what does that actually mean in terms of their labor practices? Or Twitter trying to stand in solidarity with Black Lives Matter even though as a company they haven’t taken racism and misogyny that affected their users seriously for years. The question is how deep this reckoning goes”
Meanwhile, at least 800 big brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Ford are using cancel culture to boycott Facebook advertising due to the platform’s refusal to censor the speech of organizations deemed “hate groups.”
**Background**
Cancel culture, also known as callout culture, is the removal (“canceling”) of support for individuals and their work due to an opinion or action on their part deemed objectionable to the parties “calling” them out. [1]
The individuals are typically first called out on social media to magnify the public knowledge of their perceived offense, whereupon the campaign to cancel ensues. The canceling can take several forms, including the exerting of pressure on organizations to cancel the individual’s public appearances or speaking engagements and, in the case of businesses deemed offensive, organizing boycotts of their products. [1]
Celebrities and social and political leaders are frequently the targets of cancel campaigns. Actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who was found guilty in 2018 of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman and accused of assault by more than 50 women, is only one of many, recent, high-profile examples. [2] But everyday people can be caught in the crosshairs as well. A public relations executive, for example, tweeted an offensive joke about AIDS before boarding a plane in London and traveling to South Africa. An uproar on Twitter followed, and by the time her plane landed, she had been “called out,” “canceled,” and fired. [3]
The cancel campaigns are not always so successful or one-sided. In July 2020, after Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue praised President Trump for promoting an Hispanic prosperity initiative, liberal Latino leaders organized a boycott of Goya products despite Unanue’s similar praise of President Obama. Instead of bankrupting the company, the attempted cancellation prompted the Bodega and Small Business Association to come to the company’s defense with a “buycott” to support the more than 13,000 shops that sell Goya products and thousands of black and Latino Goya employees. [4] [5]
Anyone who remembers reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter knows cancel culture is not new. What is new, however, is social media’s ability to boost the speed, scope, and impact of a “cancel” and the influence this has had on traditional bastions of free speech. The now endemic quality of cancel culture has even spawned college classes, such as one taught by Visiting Professor Loretta J. Ross at Smith College, in which Ross says she is “challenging the call-out culture.” [34]
|
# Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?'
**Argument**
A broken tablet requires an experienced technician to fix, which can be costly and time-consuming.
Textbooks can usually be repaired with basic supplies such as glue or tape.
**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**
Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety.
According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would “make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.” Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, “The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life” and “many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.” Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama’s: “every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.
**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…
|
# Is a College Education Worth It?'
**Argument**
Colleges provide networking value.
Harvard Business School estimates that 65 to 85% of jobs are acquired through networking. College students can join fraternities and sororities, clubs, and teams as well as participate in a variety of social functions to meet new people and network with possible business connections. Internships offered through colleges often lead to mentors or useful contacts within a student’s preferred field. Many colleges offer social media workshops, networking tips, career-related consultation, and alumni networks.
**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 Birth Control Pills Be Available Over the Counter (OTC)?'
**Argument**
Drug manufacturers are unlikely to make the Pill OTC, so improved access has to be accomplished through other means.
Drug makers to date have little interest in going through the process to make a drug over-the-counter because it can take a long time and the costs are significant. Only the drug manufacturer can initiate this process with the FDA, which decides on the prescription or OTC status of a drug based on applications submitted voluntarily by the manufacturers. Lawmakers cannot change the status of a drug from prescription to OTC. Further, any decision involving birth control can be politically controversial.
Instead, some states are making birth control available without a prescription, but not over-the-counter. In those states, a pharmacist is required to ask the patient a few questions, notes blood pressure and weight, and dispenses birth control from behind the pharmacy counter. Many states including California, Maryland, Tennessee, and Washington allow birth control without a prescription. California, Maryland, and DC even allow 12-month supplies to be dispensed at once, which has been found to reduce unintended pregnancies by 30% and the odds of an abortion by 46%. The birth control in these cases is covered by insurance. A study found that 68% of women would use birth control if it were available via a pharmacist and 63% agreed the pharmacist consultation was an important step.
Women in some states can access birth control via an app or website from private companies. Insurance covers some of these prescriptions, and all that is generally required is a brief consultation to assess risks and appropriate medication, sometimes by video chat. Some services deliver the birth control to the patient, eliminating the need to stop by a pharmacy.
**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…
|
# Should Teachers Get Tenure?'
**Argument**
Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers.
Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers. Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to “a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable.”
**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 People Become Vegetarian?'
**Argument**
Eating meat is part of a healthful diet.
Meat is the most convenient protein source available. In one serving, meat provides all the essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein), as well as essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, and B vitamins. Most plant foods do not provide adequate levels of all the essential amino acids in a single serving.
Saturated fats contain the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K, and the cholesterol from saturated animal fat is needed for the proper function of serotonin receptors in the brain. Low cholesterol levels have been linked to depression. According to a study by researchers at the Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, vegetarians “suffer significantly more often from anxiety disorder and/or depression.” Saturated fats are also essential for building and maintaining cell health, and help the body absorb calcium.
Meat is the best source of vitamin B12, a vitamin necessary to nervous and digestive system health. Although it is also found in eggs and dairy, a peer-reviewed July 2003 study showed two in three vegetarians were vitamin B12 deficient compared to one in 20 meat eaters. Eating meat also provides a better source of iron than a vegetarian diet. The body absorbs 15% to 35% of the heme iron in meat, but only absorbs 2% to 20% of the non-heme iron found in vegetarian sources like leafy greens and beans.
**Background**
Americans eat an average of 58 pounds of beef, 96 pounds of chicken, and 52 pounds of pork, per person, per year, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Vegetarians, about 5% of the US adult population, do not eat meat (including poultry and seafood). The percentage of Americans who identify as vegetarian has remained steady for two decades. 11% of those who identify as liberal follow a vegetarian diet, compared to 2% of conservatives.
Many proponents of vegetarianism say that eating meat harms health, wastes resources, and creates pollution. They often argue that killing animals for food is cruel and unethical since non-animal food sources are plentiful.
Many opponents of a vegetarian diet say that meat consumption is healthful and humane, and that producing vegetables causes many of the same environmental problems as producing meat. They also argue that humans have been eating and enjoying meat for 2.3 million years. Read more background…
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.